eNewsUSA

"Common-Sense Approach" Or "Plan To Block" Oil Shale Development

2012-02-03T16:33:00.001-05:00

Feb 3: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The publication opens a 90-day public review and comment period. BLM called the proposal a "common-sense approach" while House Republican leaders said it was the Obama Administration's "plan to block U.S. oil shale development and U.S. job creation."

The Draft PEIS analyzes several alternatives for land allocation and resource management. Under the BLM's Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft PEIS, the BLM would continue to support the research and development of hydrocarbon deposits in an environmentally responsible way that protects scarce water supplies in the arid West.

If the BLM decides to adopt the Preferred Alternative, 461,965 acres would be available for research and development of oil shale, a kerogen-rich rock (35,308 acres in Colorado; 252,181 acres in Utah; and 174,476 acres in Wyoming). In addition, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands, a type of hydrocarbon-wet sedimentary deposit. BLM Director Bob Abbey said, "The preferred alternative continues our commitment to encouraging research, development, and demonstration projects so that companies can develop technologies that can lead to economic and commercial viability. Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we are proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity. If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first."

BLM indicated in a release that, "To date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and there is currently no commercial development of oil shale in the areas under review in the draft PEIS." Lands that would be open to oil shale development under the Preferred Alternative would be available for Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leases. BLM could issue a commercial lease after a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and meets all federal regulations for conversion to a commercial lease.

Additionally, following the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office -- which determined that several fundamental questions about oil shale technologies remain unanswered, including critical questions about water demands -- the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is undertaking an analysis of baseline water resources conditions to improve the understanding of groundwater and surface water systems that could be affected by commercial-scale oil shale development.

BLM indicates that "oil shale" is a term used to describe a wide range of fine-grained, sedimentary rocks that contain solid bituminous materials called kerogen. It should not be confused with "shale oil," which is not addressed by the draft PEIS. Kerogen, which is organic matter derived mainly from aquatic organisms, releases petroleum-like liquids when subjected to extremely high temperatures -- more than 750 degrees. Developers have been trying to produce oil from this rock in an economically-viable way for more than a century. The majority of U.S. oil shale (and the world's largest oil shale deposit) is found in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Tar sands are sedimentary rocks containing a heavy hydrocarbon compound called bitumen. They can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. However, unlike the oil sands deposits in Canada, oil is not currently produced from tar sands on a significant commercial level in the United States. Additionally, the U.S. tar sands are hydrocarbon wet, whereas the Canadian oil sands are water wet. This difference means that U.S. tar sands will require different processing techniques.

Any new land allocation decisions made on the basis of the Final PEIS would replace the land allocation decisions made in 2008 that proposed making up to 2 million acres of public lands available for commercial oil shale leasing in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and 431,000 acres available for tar sands leasing in Utah. Some Western communities argued that the 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision would have prematurely allowed commercial leasing without technologies having been proven viable and without a clear understanding of impacts on scarce Western water supplies. In response to those concerns and in settlement of litigation, the agency agreed to reconsider the 2008 land allocation decisions.

BLM indicates that a 90-day public review and comment period began on February 3, 2012 and is scheduled to end on May 4, 2012 [Note: The FR notice 77 FR 5513, indicates that the comment deadline ends on 05/02/2012]. Public meetings on the Draft PEIS will also be held in Rifle, CO; Rock Springs, WY; Salt Lake City; and Vernal, UT. The public will be notified of the dates and times of these meetings at least 15 days in advance via local media and the project website.

House Natural Resources (NR) Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) immediately released a statement entitled, "Obama Admin. Announces Plan to Block U.S. Oil Shale Development and U.S. Job Creation." Representative Hastings said, "The distinction between the pro-American job policies of House Republicans and the anti-American energy policies of the Obama Administration could not be clearer. On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee approved a bipartisan bill [H.R.3408] to promote the development of U.S. oil shale and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs. On Friday, the Obama Administration released their plan to close over a million acres of federal land to oil shale development. Republicans have a plan to expand access to American energy resources, grow our economy, and put people back to work. The Obama Administration has a plan to lock-up U.S. energy resources and send jobs overseas. This unfortunately is just one more example to add to the ever-growing list of Obama Administration actions that block U.S. energy production."

Rep. Hastings said that according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. holds more than half of the world's oil shale resources. The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. USGS estimates show the region may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil -- six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources, and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years.

On February 1, the House NR Committee approved H.R.3408, the "Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or "PIONEERS Act" as part of the House American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7). The sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said, "Oil Shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy and the United States is fortunate to have an abundance of oil shale resources. These resources are an important component of America's energy future. This bill removes the uncertainty from oil shale development and opens up land for both research and commercial development of oil shale. It will create consistent policies that businesses can rely on to move forward, contribute to our energy security, and create good paying American jobs for thousands of Americans."

Access a lengthy release from BLM with contact and commenting information, and links to the Draft PEIS, FR notice and related information (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the markup website for opening statements, a video and a summary of the NR Committee's actions on the Markup (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3408 (click here). [#Energy/OilShale, #Energy/TarSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Is It Time To Move Past The "Obsession With Yucca Mountain"?

2012-02-02T16:19:00.001-05:00

Feb 1: The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing today to discuss the final recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [BRC, See WIMS 1/27/12]. Members welcomed several of the commission's recommendations, which propose a series of reforms to help solve our nation's growing nuclear waste challenge. Witnesses included: Former Congressman Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft, co-chairmen of the commission; and representatives from: L. Barrett Consulting; NorthWorks, Inc.; Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence; Union for Concerned Scientists; Citizens Against Government Waste; and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

The co-chairmen of the commission, testified on the commission's findings over the past two years. Hamilton and Scowcroft delivered a 27-page joint statement and warned of the dire situation facing nation's nuclear waste program and stressed the need for urgent action, explaining, "What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues." In their statement, the two said:

"America's nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain is but the latest indicator of a policy that has been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has simply not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the nation's most hazardous radioactive materials. The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay.

"What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to state federal relations and public confidence in the federal government's competence, and damaging to America's standing in the world as a source of nuclear expertise and as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non‐proliferation, and security.

"This failure is also costly to utility ratepayers who continue to pay for a nuclear waste management solution that has yet to be delivered, to communities that have become unwilling hosts of long-term waste storage facilities, and to U.S. taxpayers who face billions in liabilities as a result of the failure to meet federal waste management commitments.

"This generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with finding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoid foreclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choicesabout the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy resource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cyclebased on emerging technologies and developments and their own best interests.

"The national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option. With a 65,000 metric ton inventory of spent nuclear fuel spread across the country and growing at over 2000 metric tons per year, the status quo is not acceptable. The need for a new strategy is urgent."

The key recommendation of the BRC is: a new, "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities." The recommendations indicates that: "Experience in the United States and in other nations suggests that any attempt to force a top-down, federally mandated solution over the objections of a state or community -- far from being more efficient -- will take longer, cost more, and have lower odds of ultimate success. By contrast, the approach we recommend is explicitly adaptive, staged, and consent-based. Based on a review of successful siting processes in the United States and abroad -- including most notably the siting of a disposal facility for transuranic radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, and recent positive outcomes in Spain, Finland and Sweden -- we believe this type of approach can provide the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed to see controversial facilities through to completion."

In an opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) said he agreed with many of the Commission's recommendations, however, he went beyond the BRC recommendations and said, "I agree that Yucca Mountain - as designated by law - remains fixed on the table as a solution to the nuclear waste debate. In the wake of the Administration's interference with the independent technical evaluation of the repository at Yucca Mountain, the resulting Blue Ribbon Commission found what many of us have long been saying about the failed management of nuclear waste. The Commission's report correctly advises control of the Nuclear Waste Fund be removed from the purse strings of political ideologues and entrusted to "a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program" set forth under law."

The BRC did not recommend Yucca Mountain as a solution, and in fact said, ". . .we have not evaluated Yucca Mountain or any other location as a potential site for the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, nor have we taken a position on the Administration's request to withdraw the license application. We simply note that regardless what happens with Yucca Mountain, the U.S. inventory of spent nuclear fuel will soon exceed the amount that can be legally emplaced at this site until a second repository is in operation. So under current law, the United States will need to find a new disposal site even if Yucca Mountain goes forward. . ."

Rep. Shimkus said, "Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied geological repository for spent nuclear fuel. There are possibly no other 230 square miles in the world that have been examined and reexamined more by America's greatest scientific minds than Yucca Mountain. Three decades of study, 15 billion dollars, and, quite frankly, common sense, support the current requirement to secure high-level nuclear waste on federal property, under a mountain, in a desert." Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Over the past three years, we have watched as the Obama Administration brazenly dismantled the Yucca Mountain program, with no legal, technical, or safety basis for doing so. These actions present serious questions about this Administration's respect for taxpayers, for nuclear power consumers who have paid in billions for this project, and for the public at large. We must keep our promise to the public to ensure safe disposal of the nation's nuclear waste, and not keep putting it off."

The Commission's proposal for a "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities" was met with some opposition from Republican members and witnesses who argued we must follow the law and build Yucca Mountain. Congress decided Yucca Mountain was the best available option for our nation's nuclear waste over 25 years ago. Committee members pointed out that decades of work and billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars were poured into the project, only to have it shuttered by the Obama administration. Given the urgency of our nation's nuclear crisis, we do not have the time or the money to start over.

In response to the Republican position, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "Twenty-five years after the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is clear that this top-down, federally mandated approach has not worked. The Department of Energy has terminated its Yucca Mountain activities. Last year and again this year Congress has provided no funding for Yucca Mountain. Even the biggest advocates for Yucca Mountain in the Republican House have not acted to provide any funding. . . The Blue Ribbon Commission spent nearly two years conducting this review and its recommendations are timely. The Commission recommendations deserve our serious consideration. They raise a number of important policy questions, such as whether a new organization should be established to address the nuclear waste problem, how the Nuclear Waste Fund should be used, and whether one or more centralized storage facilities should be developed in addition to one or more geologic repositories. Answering these questions requires an open mind and a willingness to move past a narrow obsession with Yucca Mountain.

The Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is conducting a hearing on the report today (February 2). The witnesses simply include the two co-chairmen Hamilton and Scowcroft who are expected to deliver their same joint statement.

Access the House Republican E&C hearing website for background, opening statements and witness testimony (click here). Access the Democrats E&C hearing website for opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the Senate ENR hearing website for testimony and webcast (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House GOP Introduces Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act

2012-02-01T16:22:00.001-05:00

Jan 31: House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL) and Members of the Committee unveiled the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7). A Committee release indicates that the initiative is a long overdue infrastructure bill that reforms transportation programs and promotes increased domestic energy production to create American jobs. The House Natural Resources Committee is holding a Full Committee markup on the energy portion of the Act today (February 1), [See WIMS 1/30/12, and article below]. Chairman Mica said, "This bill will put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and developing new sources of low cost energy. This legislation may be the most important jobs measure to pass Congress this year."

Mica continued saying, "The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act is the largest transportation reform bill since the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956. This is a five-year bill that reforms our federal transportation programs, cuts the red tape and bureaucracy that delays projects across the country, gives states more flexibility to determine their most critical infrastructure needs, provides states with the long-term stability to undertake major improvements, and encourages private sector participation in helping to finance transportation projects."

Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) said, "The average federal highway project takes 15 years from concept to completion in the U.S. because of excessive regulations. This is far more than any other Nation. This bill will streamline the way we approach infrastructure projects by cutting red tape and reducing federal bureaucracy, all while creating millions of jobs for hard working Americans right here in the United States. These jobs will also greatly improve highway safety. Highway fatalities have steadily declined in recent years, and the funding provided in this bill will work to continue improving safety."

Chairman Mica also noted that the new legislation contains no earmarks. The previous long-term law authorizing federal surface transportation programs, known as SAFETEA-LU, contained over 6,300 earmarks. That law expired in September 2009. Since then, Congress has passed eight short-term extensions, six of which were approved when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House. Mica said, "President Obama and the Democrats' policy of passing short-term extensions and the massive stimulus have not helped the economy." The Transportation Committee is scheduled to begin consideration of the transportation reauthorization portion of the bill on February 2, 2012. The Committee outlined a summary of the transportation reauthorization and reform provisions as follows:

Authorize approximately $260 billion over five years to fund federal highway, transit and safety programs, consistent with current funding levels

Provide long-term stability for states to undertake major infrastructure projects
Contain no earmarks, compared to the previous transportation law which contained over 6,300 earmarks
Consolidate or eliminate nearly 70 federal programs
Eliminate mandates that states spend highway funding on non-highway activities
Allow states to set their own transportation priorities
Delegate more project approval authority to states
Condense deadlines for federal agency project approvals
Accelerate the approval process for projects in an existing right-of-way
Encourage states to partner with the private sector to finance and build projects
Streamline the project delivery process and reduces regulatory burdens for rail projects
Call for the funds collected for the improvement of the nation's harbors to be invested for that purpose
Ensure the safe, efficient transportation of hazardous materials in a manner that does not impose unnecessary burdens on the flow of commerce

House Marks Up Energy Part Of Energy Production & Infrastructure Bill - Feb 1: The House Committee on Natural Resources, Chaired by Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), with Ranking Member Edward Markey (D-MA) held a full Committee markup of the energy portions of the American Energy Production & Infrastructure Jobs Bill (H.R.7, see related article above). The energy portion of the bill consists of three separate bills as follows:

HR 3407 (Hastings), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, to ensure secure energy supplies for the continental Pacific Coast of the United States, lower prices, and reduce imports, and for other purposes. "Alaskan Energy for American Jobs Act"
HR 3408 (Lamborn), To set clear rules for the development of United States oil shale resources, to promote shale technology research and development, and for other purposes. "Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or "PIONEERS Act"
HR 3410 (Stivers), To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, to provide fair and equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, to formulate future offshore energy development plans in areas with the most potential, to generate revenue for American infrastructure, and for other purposes. "Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act"

In an opening statement, Chairman Hastings said, "By removing government barriers to American energy production we can help fund road and bridge construction and repairs without raising taxes or relying on borrowed 'stimulus' spending. This is a vastly different approach from what we've seen from the Obama Administration and the previous Democrat-run Congress. This is a jobs plan without earmarks or stimulus spending. This plan allows access to American energy resources, which leads to the creation of new jobs, certainty for small businesses that depend on affordable energy, and the generation of new revenue that can be used to build road and infrastructure projects to create even more American jobs. Unlocking our energy resources starts a wave of economic benefits and job creation that will touch nearly every aspect of our lives and economy. . .

"This plan will expand access to our energy resources that are currently being kept under lock and-key by the Obama Administration. This Republican pro-energy, job creation plan stands in stark contrast to the failed, job-destroying energy policies of the Obama Administration. Last week, President Obama tried in his State of the Union address to take credit for increased oil and natural gas production and claims to now support 'all-of-the-above' American energy. However, don't be fooled, President Obama's rhetoric is 180 degrees from his actions. . ."

Ranking Member Markey issued a release the day before the markup entitled, "Exxon's $41 Billion Reasons to End Tax Breaks, Pay for Infrastructure Jobs." Representative Markey indicated that 2011 was a "very good year" for Exxon Mobil, as the oil giant posted a $41 billion profit for the period. He cited the new profit numbers as "yet another example of the misplaced priorities of House Republicans, and called for the repeal of oil company tax breaks instead of allowing new drilling off America's coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to provide much-needed funding for infrastructure and transportation jobs."

Rep. Markey said, "As if there weren't already enough reasons to end these tax breaks for oil companies, here are 41 billion more. Opening up America's coasts, Florida's beaches and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling won't come close to funding needed infrastructure projects, but closing 100 year-old tax breaks and loopholes protected by oil industry lobbyists will." He said the "Natural Resource Committee Republicans will consider three bills tomorrow to open up large swaths of America's coasts and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which they have touted as the 'revenue portion' of the House Republican transportation reauthorization bill."

"Ending tax breaks for the largest oil companies could contribute $43 billion over the next 10 years to transportation funding or deficit reduction. Natural Resources Democrats have also introduced legislation that would recover $19 billion in additional funds from oil, mining and other companies by reforming outdated laws that allow for free extraction of minerals, oil and other resources from public lands. Meanwhile, even using the most optimistic projections, Republican drilling proposals as introduced would generate, at most, a little more than $5 billion over 10 years. The current funding shortfall to just keep our bridges, roads, airports and other existing transportation elements running is $12 billion for the next two years, and more than $75 billion over the next six years."

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke issued a statement on the House bill saying, "The Republican leadership has the temerity to call this horrible package a jobs bill, but it's actually a measure that will make it impossible to pass a transportation bill -- the one true jobs bill Congress could pass this year. Instead of going the bipartisan route taken by the Senate, House Republican leaders have loaded the bill with environmental protection rollbacks, extreme measures that mandate oil drilling just about everywhere, and a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The American people need a transportation bill; this bill will prevent them from getting one."

On January 25, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), called a letter signed by more than 1,000 organizations in support of legislation to rebuild the nation's transportation systems "historic in its breadth and width." According to a release, organizations, businesses, coalitions and other groups from all 50 states sent a letter to Senator Boxer and other Members of Congress urging quick action on a strong surface transportation bill before the current extension expires on March 31. The Senate has developed a bipartisan proposal, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21, S.1813), which would reauthorize surface transportation programs for two years at current funding levels [See WIMS 1/27/12].

Access a release from Chairman Mica (click here). Access a summary of the bill (click here). Access the full 846-page text of the bill (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.7 (click here). Access the markup website for opening statements, a video and a summary of the Committee's actions following the conclusion of the Markup (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3407 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3408 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3410 (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access legislative details for S.1813 (click here). [#Transport, #Energy]

Solar Industry Divided On Job Losses From Trade Tariffs With China

2012-01-31T16:16:00.001-05:00

Jan 30: An economic analysis prepared by The Brattle Group -- The Employment Impacts of Proposed Tariffs on Chinese Manufactured Photovoltaic Cells and Modules -- finds that a 100% tariff on imported solar PV cells and modules from China would result in as many as 50,000 net lost jobs in the U.S. over the next three years. Furthermore, retaliatory tariffs placed on U.S. exports of polysilicon to China would put nearly 11,000 more American jobs at risk in the first year following tariff imposition. According to the analysis, the imposition of tariffs will "slow the growth in domestic demand for photovoltaic systems by homeowners, commercial establishments and power producers, resulting in substantial job losses."

    The study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), examined the impacts that imposing a 50% tariff or a 100% tariff would have on the U.S. solar industry through 2014. Both scenarios are lower than the up to 250% tariffs sought by SolarWorld, the German-based solar cell company, in its petition to the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission. For each scenario, the study provides both a low and high estimate to account for variability in modeling the price elasticity of supply and demand.

    According to the study, a tariff of 100% would result in consumer losses between $698 million and $2,620 million. That would eliminate between 16,917 and 49,589 American jobs over the next three years. Similarly, a tariff of 50% would result in net consumer losses between $621 million and $2,287 million. That would cause between 14,877 and 43,178 job losses over the same period. These figures are all net of any potential gains in cell or module manufacturing. Jigar Shah, President of CASE said, "This analysis makes it clear that imposing even a 50% tariff, much less than SolarWorld has requested, would be devastating for American workers. We cannot allow one company's anti-China crusade to threaten the U.S. solar industry and tens of thousands of American jobs." [See WIMS 11/16/11].

    Dr. Mark Berkman, author of the report and principal at The Brattle Group stated, "While the U.S. solar industry has many facets and is quite complex, we were able to model the industry by utilizing straightforward economic analytical methods. We started by projecting the reduced demand for solar systems resulting from price increases due to tariffs. We then analyzed projected job gains and losses under two scenarios, each using a 50% and 100% tariff on imported solar cells and modules. Even under the most conservative assumptions, we did not find a scenario where imposing a tariff would create more jobs than it eliminates."

    According to the Brattle analysis, if no tariff is imposed "the aggregate demand for photovoltaic systems is expected to grow from 1,678 MW in 2011 to 4,894 MW by 2014. A 50% tariff will raise industry-wide prices and delay solar industry growth, with total MW demand falling to as low as 3,350 MW in 2014. A 100% tariff will delay this growth even more with demand falling to as low as 3,159 MW in 2014. It is a significant decline in the market for solar cells that is central to the decrease in jobs identified in this study." To measure job effects of solar module price increases, the Brattle analysis uses the same type of analytical model (IMPLAN) as government agencies, industry and economists to measure economic impacts.

    Another aspect analyzed in the report is the effect of likely retaliation by the Chinese to any U.S. imposed tariff on imported solar cells from China. According to the report, "retaliation would likely take the form of a tariff on U.S. polysilicon exports. The U.S. is a major supplier of this component of photovoltaic modules, and removing Chinese demand for U.S.‐manufactured polysilicon is expected to result in around 10,881 U.S. job losses in the first year after tariffs are imposed." CASE's Shah said, "This is an eye-opening analysis. Even after accounting for job gains in solar cell manufacturing, the likely job losses in the rest of America's solar industry and economy are staggering."

    Shah also noted that the findings of this study are consistent with a recent story ("Get-Tough Policy on Chinese Tires Falls Flat") in The Wall Street Journal in regard to tariffs placed on Chinese tires. As the Journal reported, "The measure was meant to whack imports of passenger and light-truck tires and give a boost to manufacturers and job creation in the U.S. Yet, for a variety of reasons, it has apparently done little of eitherand has surely raised prices for consumers." Shah added, "Imposing tariffs on imported Chinese solar modules will have the same perverse results."

On January 25, 2012, an evaluation of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data released by the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) indicated that Chinese producers have more than doubled imports of crystalline silicon solar cells and modules in advance of potential U.S. government duties on those imports. The coalition, which represents 11,000 U.S. workers at more than 150 American companies across the country, alleges that the recent 110 percent surge in import volume since July 2011, is further proof of illegal dumping and subsidies by Chinese solar producers and warrants a finding of critical circumstances that would apply retroactive duties to Chinese imports.

Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld Industries America Inc., based in Oregon said, "This significant increase in imports demonstrates that the Chinese know they have violated U.S. and international trade rules and are trying to evade the consequences. Year to date, Chinese imports of solar cells and modules in 2011 are up 346 percent by quantity and 138 percent by value. Since 2008, Chinese imports have risen 939 percent by value and 1664 percent by quantity. This most recent surge of Chinese solar imports gives the U.S. Department of Commerce the evidence it needs not only to make a preliminary determination in our favor, but also to apply a critical-circumstances finding to address this last-minute import surge."

Brinser continued saying, "The Chinese have made it clear that, contrary to various World Trade Organization agreements they signed 10 years ago, they will employ any means necessary to dominate the American and international solar markets. Rather than reward the Chinese for cheating, Commerce and the International Trade Commission need to take every possible action to enable American manufacturers to compete fairly."

Brinser, speaking for CASM issued a statement in response to the new CASE economic analysis saying, "SolarWorld and the other members of CASM strongly support the creation of American jobs in the solar industry. This highly speculative study ignores the illegality of China's actions and fails to consider the harm those actions have caused to high-tech manufacturing jobs in the solar sector. We do know that thousands of good-paying American manufacturing jobs have already been lost to illegal Chinese dumping and subsidies for solar products. Our goal is to build America's solar manufacturing base and the good jobs with benefits, innovation and competition that come along with it."

On January 30, CASM, led by SolarWorld recognized the U.S. Department of Commerce for taking expedited action against what they called "a massive, evasive surge of Chinese solar cell and panel imports" ahead of Commerce's first preliminary determination on duties, now scheduled for March 2, 2012. Commerce's finding of "critical circumstances" means that if the agency imposes preliminary countervailing duties on March 2, the duties will apply to all imports of cells and modules from Chinese exporters that were brought into the United States starting December 3, 2011.

CASM said this critical-circumstances ruling marks the first time that Commerce has issued such a finding in advance of a preliminary countervailing duty determination. Aside from the determination on anti-subsidy (also called countervailing) duties, the agency is scheduled to issue a separate preliminary ruling on anti-dumping duties on March 27. Commerce will issue a separate critical-circumstances ruling in the anti-dumping investigation. Separately, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a unanimous preliminary determination on December 2, that the imports are harming the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

Brinser said, "After several years of massive imports of illegally subsidized and dumped Chinese solar products, the U.S. solar manufacturing industry and its workers greatly appreciate the Department of Commerce's finding that importers of Chinese products have mounted a massive surge in product to evade accountability to U.S. and international trade law. Recognizing that an attempt at circumvention can happen, the trade law allows Commerce to act against such abusive behavior. We value Commerce's decision, and we hope that it will send a clear message to the marketplace about Commerce's commitment to using all of its tools to combat unfair trade. We filed these trade cases as a key step to rekindle growth in America's renewable energy manufacturing and jobs. SolarWorld and CASM believe that free trade is trade free of illegal governmental intervention. Robust and legal international competition, not predatory pricing that relies on massive and improper subsidies, will produce the best products and sustainable price declines over the long term. Today, we are one step closer to these aims."

The Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), is a coalition of American solar companies representing 97% to 98% of the U.S. solar industry jobs, and believes free trade and industry competition are critical to making solar electricity affordable for everyone. CASE is united in its commitment to creating jobs through the growth and development of the American solar industry.

The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) is made up of seven companies, including SolarWorld that manufacture solar cells and modules in the United States as well as more than 150 employers of more than 11,000 workers who have registered their support for CASM's case as associate members. These member companies have plants in nearly every region in the United States, including the Northwest and California, the Southwest, Midwest, Northeast and South and support several thousand U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Access a release from CASE and link to their report (click here). Access the CASE website for more information (click here). Access a release from SolarWorld and CASM and link to their Solar Import report (click here). Access the CASM statement in response to the CASE study (click here). Access the CASM statement on the Commerce Department action (click here). Access the Department of Commerce Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances (click here). Access the Department of Commerce Monthly Shipment Q&V Analysis for Critical Circumstances (click here). Access the CASM website (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Senate Republican Bill To Approve Keystone XL Pipeline Project

2012-01-30T16:28:00.001-05:00

Jan 30: U.S. Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Hoeven (R-ND) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and a total of 44 senators, including one Democrat, Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that they will introduce legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project under Congress's authority enumerated in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. Senator Vitter said, "This new bill is a lot like the old one, but it makes it definitive that Congress has the authority to push the Keystone XL Pipeline forward. Everyone in Washington talks about saving the economy and creating jobs -- the Keystone XL project will actually do something about that. And it would be pure politics for the president not to support it."

The legislation would authorize TransCanada to construct and operate the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast, transporting an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries, which includes 100,000 barrels a day from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. The bill allows the company to move forward with construction of the pipeline in the United States while the State of Nebraska works to determine an alternative route. Senator Hoeven secured an opinion from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) which he said confirms Congress's constitutional authority to approve the project.

The Keystone XL pipeline project has been under review for more than three years, but President Obama rejected it last week saying the 60-day provision authored by Lugar, Hoeven and Vitter included in the payroll tax cut extension bill passed in December didn't give him enough time to review the project [See WIMS 1/23/12]. In fact, the Obama Administration spent 1,217 days reviewing the pipeline and there was no time limit on the State Department's ability to review the Nebraska portion of the project.

Senator Hoeven said, "Our legislation not only acknowledges the vital national interest this project represents on many levels, but also works in a bipartisan way to begin construction. It will create thousands of jobs, help control fuel prices at the pump and reduce our reliance on Middle East oil and it can be accomplished with congressional authority, just as the Alaska Pipeline was nearly 40 years ago. The reality is that if America doesn't build the Keystone project the Canadian oil will still be produced and shipped, but instead of being refined in the United States by American workers and benefiting American consumers, it will be shipped by tanker across the Pacific to China." Senator Lugar said, "The job creation, economic and energy security arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of building the pipeline. A majority of Americans support it. President Obama's opposition is not in the best interest of the United States. The President has failed to lead but we will not stop trying to complete this critical supply line."

When the State department recommended the denial, President Obama issued a statement saying, ". . .the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. . . This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.:

Russ Girling, TransCanada's (the project developer) president and chief executive officer said, "This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014."

Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans in Congress need to stop wasting precious time doing the bidding of Big Oil and address the climate crisis and create long-term jobs in a new, clean energy economy. Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster and create few permanent jobs in the process. Instead much of the oil will be exported even as the pipeline deepens our dependence on the fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water and driving the global climate crisis."

CBD indicated in a release that "Keystone XL would transport dirty tar-sands oil 1,700 miles across six states and hundreds of water bodies, posing an unacceptable risk of spill. An existing pipeline called Keystone 1 has already leaked 14 times since it started operating in June 2010, including one spill that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. The pipeline would directly threaten at least 20 imperiled species, including whooping cranes. Extraction and refinement of tar-sands oil produces two to three times more greenhouse gases per barrel than conventional oil and represents a massive new source of fossil fuels that leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has called 'game over' for our ability to avoid a climate catastrophe. Strip mining of oil from Alberta's tar sands is also destroying tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest and polluting hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River, in the process creating toxic ponds so large they can be seen from space."

On the House side, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said on ABC's "This Week" "If it's not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it'll be part of it [i.e. Keystone pipeline bill]." The House is expected to consider the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act (set to be H.R.7), which would link new American energy production to high-priority infrastructure projects. Instead of more 'stimulus' spending or wasteful earmarks, the bill would permanently remove government barriers to American energy production and use the revenues to repair and improve America's roads and bridges both of which support long-term job growth. Speaker Boehner also said there will be no earmarks in legislation which he indicated "the House will soon vote on that permanently removes government barriers to energy production to help create thousands of private-sector jobs, lower gas prices, and repair our roads and bridges."

On February 1, the Natural Resources Committee will hold a Full Committee markup on the energy portion of the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act, legislation to link new American energy production with high-priority infrastructure projects. The bill will remove government barriers to American energy production, creating over a million new American jobs, lowering gasoline prices, and helping repair our roads and bridges with no earmarks. The energy portion includes: expanded Offshore Energy Production (H.R. 3410, Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act); Opening less than 3 percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to responsible energy development (H.R. 3407, Alaskan Energy for American Jobs Act); and increasing oil shale development by setting clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources and promoting shale technology research and development (H.R. 3408, Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act).

Access a release from the Senators with a list of cosponsors and additional background (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a statement from Speaker Boehner and link to an overview of H.R.7 (click here). Access a report in The Hill re: the House consideration of the Keystone XL project (click here). Access the statement from the President (click here). Access a release on the House Natural Resources Committee meeting (click here). Access the Presidential Memorandum (click here). Access the release from TransCanada (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/KXL, #Energy/OilSands, #Energy/TarSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House & Senate Prepare To Hear Nuclear Waste Issues

2012-01-27T16:50:00.001-05:00

Jan 26: Following the release of the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which details comprehensive recommendations for creating a safe, longterm solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 1/26/12], House and Senate Committees announced plans to hold hearings on the recommendations.

The United States currently has more than 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the country. More than 2,000 tons are being produced each year. The DOE also is storing an additional 2,500 tons of spent fuel and large volumes of high‐level nuclear waste, mostly from past weapons programs, at a handful of government‐owned sites.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) welcomed the final report. They said they were "disappointed that President Obama prohibited the commission from reviewing the merits of Yucca Mountain." They indicated that they agree with several of the commission's recommendations and believe the report's findings only underscore the urgent need to move forward with development of the Yucca program. The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, February 1, 2012, at 9:30 AM.

The two issued a joint statement saying, "In the wake of the Obama administration's mismanagement of Yucca Mountain, we agree with the commission that a new organizational structure must be put into place to manage our country's nuclear waste. The current administration has proved unwilling to carry out the law; it's time to think about a new single-purpose entity to put our country's nuclear future back on track. As recommended in the report, it is crucial this authority have full access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Recent House efforts to fund Yucca Mountain have been repeatedly thwarted by Harry Reid's Democratic Senate and the White House. We must decouple these funds from political whims imposed by the budget cycle to ensure the billions of dollars taxpayers and ratepayers have poured into Yucca Mountain will not be squandered.

"The commission underscored the need for prompt action on a long-term storage disposal facility, and we believe Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied option. While we develop this repository, we agree that we must also prepare for the large-scale transport of nuclear waste. As our nation's nuclear waste increases, so does the need for a long-term nuclear waste solution. We will continue to examine the commission's findings as we work to ensure the safety of our nuclear future."

The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX), issued a statement saying, "I welcome the release of the report and look forward to its thoughtful review by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Nuclear energy will continue to be an integral piece of America's energy portfolio, and identifying a workable path forward to manage nuclear waste, including new technology pathways, deserves consideration. I thank the Blue Ribbon Commission panel for its hard work, particularly the leadership of its Co-Chairmen, General Scowcroft and former Congressman Hamilton.

"President Obama threw the future of U.S. nuclear waste management into disarray when he unilaterally decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository. While by law Yucca Mountain continues to be the only designated permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste, sensible steps to make it easier for future generations to manage nuclear waste warrant examination. The BRC's Report is a productive contribution to that ongoing discussion. "In the meantime, American taxpayers deserve to see the results of their $15 billion investment in Yucca Mountain, including the results of the comprehensive scientific review, which have yet to be released. At a time when the country desperately needs a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy including expanded use of nuclear energy the lack of a permanent storage solution continues to burden existing nuclear plants and increase liability to the American taxpayer. I look forward to an informative hearing in the coming weeks to review the Commission's report."

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) announced the Committee will hold a hearing on the Commission's report on Thursday, February 2, with witnesses including Co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Lt. General Brent Scowcraft, USAF. Ranking Member Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), released a statement saying, "I've been working with Sens. Feinstein, Alexander and Bingaman to find a plan to deal with our nation's spent nuclear fuel. We have a lot of issues to address -- not just the need for a long-term repository, but also transportation safety issues, the federal government's contractual liability and the need to consolidate and prioritize the existing temporary storage facilities -- and I'll be looking to the commission for guidance as we consider possible legislative action.

"While the commission's report doesn't break a lot of new ground, it does offer some solid recommendations for improving U.S. policy, especially the call for the creation of a new organization that's protected from political influence or annual funding bills to handle nuclear waste disposal. I think that's an idea that's overdue, which is why I cosponsored Sen. Voinovich's Fed-Corp proposal.

In its report, the BRC indicated, ". . .the Obama Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the latest indicator of a nuclear waste management policy that has been troubled for decades and has now reached an impasse. Allowing that impasse to continue is not an option. . .The Commission noted that it was specifically not tasked with rendering any opinion on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, proposing any specific site for a waste management facility, or offering any opinion on the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy supply mix. . . the urgent need to change and improve our strategy for managing the high‐level wastes and spent fuel that already exist and will continue to accumulate so long as nuclear reactors operate in this country."

The Commission said what it has endeavored to do is "recommend a sound waste management approach that can lead to the resolution of the current impasse, and can and should be applied regardless of what site or sites are ultimately chosen to serve as the permanent disposal facility for America's spent nuclear fuel and other high‐level nuclear wastes."

Access a release from Reps. Upton and Shimkus (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hall (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from BRC (click here). Access the complete 180-page report (click here). Access the BRC website for complete background information (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

House Hearing Indicates Chevy Volt Has No Defects

2012-01-26T16:28:00.001-05:00

Jan 25: The House Ovesight & Government Reform Committee, Chaired by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending, Chaired by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), held a hearing entitled, "Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?" Witnesses included: David L. Strickland, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Daniel Akerson, Chairman and CEO General Motors; and John German, Senior Fellow and Program Director for the International Council on Clean Transportation.

A Republican committee staff report indicates, "The delayed public notification of serious safety concerns relating to the Chevy Volt raises significant concerns regarding the unnatural relationship between General Motors (GM), Chrysler and the Obama Administration. Rather than allowing GM and Chrysler to enter into a traditional bankruptcy process, the Obama Administration intervened and forced the companies to participate in a politically orchestrated process. The result was that GM and Chrysler emerged as quasi-private entities, partially owned by the United States government.

"President Obama has used this unusual blurring of public and private sector boundaries to openly tout the results of this partnership as a top accomplishment of his Administration -- creating a dynamic where the President is politically reliant on the success of GM and Chrysler. Moreover, in the case of GM, the Administration has offered substantial taxpayer funded subsidies to encourage production of the Volt, such as $151.4 million in stimulus funds for a Michigan-based company that produces lithium-ion polymer battery cells for the Volt as well as $105 million directly to GM. It has also extended a significant subsidy to encourage consumers to purchase the vehicle, offering buyers of the Volt a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle.

"In the face of that political dependency, it is deeply troubling that public notification of the safety concerns related to the Volt was inexplicably delayed for six months a period of time that also coincides with the negotiation over the 2017-2025 fuel economy standards. The necessity of a full explanation for NHTSA's silence concerning the Volt's safety risk has been compounded by its lack of cooperation with the Committee."

NHTSA testified, ". . .we have concluded the agency's investigation and have found no discernible defect trend. The vehicle modifications recently developed by GM effectively address the issue of battery intrusion and they have included this modification as they manufacture new vehicles going forward. NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles show great promise as a safe and fuel-efficient option for American drivers."

GM's Akerson testified, "We engineered the Volt to be among the safest vehicles on the road earning an overall NHTSA 5 Stars for occupant safety and a Top Safety Pick from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder. . . In other words, we engineered the Volt to be the only current EV on the road that you can drive across town or across the country without fear of being stranded when the battery power is depleted. . .

". . .the Volt's entry into the market came soon after GM's emergence from its government rescue and restructuring -- and during this political season. As such, the Volt seems, perhaps unfairly, to have become a surrogate for some to offer broader

commentary on General Motors' business prospects and Administration policy." Following some concerns raised by NHTSA, Akerson said, "GM volunteered to conduct a Customer Satisfaction Program and implement structural and cooling system enhancements to further protect the Volt battery from the possibility of an electrical fire occurring days or weeks after a severe side crash. . .

"It's also important that we reaffirm our commitment to the Volt's battery technology, and the actions we are taking have nothing to do with the battery pack itself. None of these changes will touch the battery cell or pack. As a result, we will not change any part of the manufacturing process at our Brownstown, Michigan, battery pack assembly plant. We have tested the Volt's battery system for more than 285,000 hours, or 25 years, of operation. It's important to note, the battery cell design used in the Volt was not the cause of the incidents that prompted the investigation. . .

"Since news of the investigation broke, a couple of hundred out of our nearly eight thousand owners have requested either a loaner vehicle or a potential buy back. And that's no surprise as 93% of Volt owners in a recent Consumer Reports survey report

the highest customer satisfaction with their vehicles -- more than any other vehicle and the highest ever recorded by this respected third party. . . We have treated this process with NHTSA with the highest level of urgency and seriousness from day one. For its part, NHTSA has certainly been very thorough in this process and we have responded accordingly. In closing, the Volt is safe. It's a marvelous machine. It represents so much of what is right at GM and, frankly, American ingenuity and manufacturing."

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee said, "If I thought there was any kind of a cover-up in efforts by GM or NHTSA to protect consumer safety, I would not tolerate it. Today, I saw no such evidence. Based on what we know so far, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program appeared to do just what it is supposed to do: catch potential safety concerns with new cars before they become a risk to consumers. And General Motors appeared to do exactly what we would hope it would do.So far, we have seen no evidence to support the implication that NHTSA has allowed politics to guide its decision-making."

Rep. Kucinich said further, "A very detailed, one-hundred-and-thirty-five page final report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on its investigation into the Volt Battery Fire Incident provides detailed answers to the question this hearing seems to ask. Considering that in the last few months there have been efforts by the majority to defund programs that support the development of technologies for electric and alternative fuel vehicles, and other proposals to take away tax incentives for purchasing electric cars, I am concerned that an effect of this hearing could be to undermine technology that is critical to both protecting the environment and ensuring the success of the U.S. auto manufacturing industry, as well as U.S. economic competitiveness generally. The Chevy Volt has helped to propel the resurgence of GM, and the jobs that come with it. Technologies developed for the Volt have been adopted on other vehicles to increase their efficiency, desirability and marketability."

Access the Republican hearing website for links to the testimony, staff report and video (click here). Access a release from Rep. Kucinich (click here). [#Transport/Electric, #MITransport/Electric]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

SOTU Calls For "All-Of-The-Above Strategy" For American Energy

2012-01-25T16:26:00.001-05:00

Jan 25: President Obama delivered his State of the Union address and covered a wide-ranging agenda of topics including, of particular importance to the WIMS readers, Washington, DC gridlock, energy, infrastructure and regulatory reform.

On the subject of Washington gridlock, the President emphasized the problems with the 60-vote filibuster and cloture rule in the Senate and destructive DC politics and rhetoric. He reminded that, "A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything - even routine business - passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." He said, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken. Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?" He called for lowering "the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.

He said, "I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. . . when we act together, there's nothing the United States of America can't achieve. That's the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years." And, he concluded the speech reemphasizing the need for politicians to work together saying, "No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

The President spent a good deal of time talking about energy and one of the biggest applause lines of the night came when he called for an "all-of-the-above strategy" for American energy. The President said:

". . .nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. (Applause.) Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.

"But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

"The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock - reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

"Now, what's true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

"When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."

"Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.

"We've subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs.

"We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well, tonight, I will. I'm directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

"Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs."

The President also said that the focus on energy should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. He said:

"We've got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.
"During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

"In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."

The President also reemphasized the need for regulatory reform, but cautioned about going too far and being selective in the reforms. He said:

"There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill -- because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

"Now, I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men."

Access the full text of the President's SOTU address (click here). Access the video of the SOTU (click here). Access links to more White House information on the SOTU including ways to participate and schedule of events (click here). Access the Blueprint for the Future (click here).[#All]

Reactions To The President's State Of The Union Address - Jan 24: WIMS has assembled some representative excerpts of reactions to the President's State of the Union message. In addition the White House released a composite of a number of responses from many governors, mayors, business representatives, and labor organizations (See link below).

Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana Republican Address to the Nation: "The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight. But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse: the percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today. . .So 2012 is a year of true opportunity, maybe our last, to restore an America of hope and upward mobility, and greater equality. The challenges aren't matters of ideology, or party preference; the problems are simply mathematical, and the answers are purely practical. An opposition that would earn its way back to leadership must offer not just criticism of failures that anyone can see, but a positive and credible plan to make life better, particularly for those aspiring to make a better life for themselves. Republicans accept this duty, gratefully. . .

"It's absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth. . . As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait. . ."

Eileen Claussen, President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: "We share President Obama's enthusiasm for homegrown solutions to America's energy challenges. Without question, America has the resources and know-how to produce more energy at home, strengthening both our economy and our national security. But protecting the climate also has to be part of the equation. If we sensitively develop domestic reserves, get serious about ramping up new energy sources, and push efficiency across the board, we can both meet America's energy needs and dramatically shrink our carbon footprint. Even if comprehensive legislation remains off the table for now, we can make important progress tackling these challenges piece by piece. C2ES is working with policymakers and stakeholders on ways to expand enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon dioxide an approach that can boost domestic oil production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, we're working with automakers, environmentalists and others on a plan for integrating plug-in electric vehicles into the U.S. electrical grid. We look forward to sharing the results of these and other C2ES initiatives aimed at practical solutions to our twin climate and energy challenges."

Kierán Suckling, Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity: "Rather than calling for bold action to combat climate change, Obama intends to deepen America's dependence on fossil fuels which will increase dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding offshore oil drilling raises the risk of disastrous spills, puts wildlife in harm's way and solidifies U.S. dependence on the fossil fuels that are driving the global climate crisis."

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune: Tonight President Obama laid out a blueprint for a nation built to last, highlighting important priorities to give hardworking Americans a fair shake, create good jobs for American workers and restore America's role as a global leader in manufacturing and innovation. There is no better way to achieve those goals than with a clean energy economy. We are especially encouraged by the President's commitment to doubling down on clean energy sources like wind and solar and creating incentives for clean energy growth and job creation. . . But we can't wait much longer for the clean energy revolution. Each day, corporate polluters put our children's health and our nation's future at risk, polluting the air we breathe and the water we drink with toxic chemicals."

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council: "Home-grown sources of energy certainly are preferable to imports, especially from unstable regions of the world. But as the president noted, feeding our addiction to fossil fuels is not the long-term solution; we need to embrace renewable sources of energy with even greater fervor as well as energy efficiency. That's the path to a healthier, cleaner and more prosperous world. We all want American energy independence. But let's do it right."

T. Boone Pickens, Chair BP Capital Management: "I agree we should use every available American resource. I applaud President Obama for highlighting natural gas and for calling on Congress to better promote its use. The expanded use of natural gas in America in power generation and transportation has enormous bipartisan support in the Congress and in the states. It is time to move from vague generalities to specifics on how we make this transition happen. I am confident that President Obama, as well as all the candidates for President, will lay out detailed plans on how they intend to achieve it. . . America does not have a natural gas production problem we are awash in natural gas. What we have is a demand problem and unless we bring both sides of the equation in balance, we will see this cleaner, cheaper, abundant, domestic resource exported in greater and greater quantities."

Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council: "ACC welcomes the President's focus on energy and manufacturingkey to any blueprint for a stronger economy. Our member companies and their more than 780,000 employees are part of the answer, creating solutions that will enable a strong, secure and sustainable future. . . Natural gas from shale is a prime example of the 'homegrown energy' the President wants America to use. It's a game changer for the chemistry industry and other manufacturers, who can use more affordable and stable supplies to expand exports and create jobs. . . we need effective, fiscally responsible policies and balanced, rational regulations that will allow the nation to capitalize on our significant domestic energy sources while also protecting our environment."

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons: "Tonight the President focused on the need to create jobs, shore up our energy security through increased domestic production and revive manufacturing in America. Yet his decision last week to reject the Keystone XL killed the promise of nearly 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs along with the 118,000 indirect jobs that would ripple across our economy. . . The Obama Administration must take action to put an end to the rampant overregulation and overreach by the National Labor Relations Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. . . As consumers of one-third of our nation's energy supply, manufacturers embrace a true 'all-of-the-above' energy policy not one subject to the political winds."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue: "Tonight the president addressed a number of subjects important to the economy and our nation. Unfortunately, too many of the solutions he proposed rest on higher taxes, more spending, and an avalanche of new regulations. The way to create the jobs Americans need is to grow our free enterprise economy, not to further expand the federal government. "The Chamber stands ready to work with the administration and both parties in Congress to create American jobs without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Stronger growth is fundamental to creating more opportunity, a more inclusive economy, and a better quality of life for all Americans. "All participants in this discussion should concentrate on uniting Americans around a common plan, not dividing them for political purposes."

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA): The President tonight outlined a laundry list of popular programs without regard to what they cost and his own record in office. He has failed to deliver on economic growth promises, has squandered $800 billion in stimulus funds, and vetoed jobs and affordable domestic energy bills passed by Congress. What is clear is that he is pursuing a partisan class-warfare agenda aimed at dividing the American people. . ."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI):"President Obama talked of a future where we're in control of our own energy, but time and again, he has blocked our ability to develop our vast energy resources and partner with North American allies to lessen our dependence on hostile regions of the world. The President said we need an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy, but his government's policies are keeping supplies locked away and squeezing our power sector, making energy less reliable and less affordable for working families and businesses struggling to grow. He said a lot about energy at a time when the American people recognize the jobs and security that come with energy development, but he stayed silent on two of the most significant energy issues facing our nation today: the Keystone XL pipeline he rejected and the failed government gamble on Solyndra. The silence speaks volumes about contrasting policy visions. . ."

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "Tonight, the President delivered a campaign speech designed to please his liberal base. The President told the American people that he has a blueprint for the economy, but what he failed to mention is that we've been working off the President's blueprint for three years. And what's it gotten us: millions still looking for work, trillions in debt, and the first credit downgrade in U.S. history. The President also proposed some ideas tonight that could have bipartisan support. If he's serious about those proposals -- if he really wants to enact them -- he'll encourage the Democrats who run the Senate to keep them free from poison pills like tax hikes on job creators that we know from past experience turn bipartisan support into bipartisan opposition. The President can decide he's not interested in working with Congress if his party only controls one half of it. That's his prerogative. He can give up on bipartisanship. But we won't. Our problems are too urgent. The economy is too weak. The future is too uncertain."

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: "President Obama has clearly received the message that his global warming agenda is gone, dead, done with the American people -- that's why he was touting oil and natural gas so much in his State of the Union address tonight. . . But while he talks the talk, he is clearly still determined to achieve his global warming agenda by shutting down oil, gas and coal development so that energy prices will, as he said himself, 'necessarily skyrocket'. . . He took credit for increased natural gas production, but this is the same President who said that we have to develop natural gas in a way that won't 'poison people' and has an administration that is waging a regulatory assault on hydraulic fracturing the primary method of shale gas extraction even though under state regulation, there has not been one confirmed case of water contamination from fracked formations. . ."

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee: "The President's eloquent optimism stands in marked contrast to the angry tone Americans have been hearing on the campaign trail from his opponents. I welcome his call to action for us to work together to strengthen the middle class, create clean energy jobs, help responsible homeowners stay in their homes, protect the environment from toxins such as mercury and rebuild America's infrastructure. I will do everything I can to bridge the partisan divide and we can start right away by passing a bipartisan surface transportation bill that saves or creates millions of jobs."

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) : "The President is absolutely correct to focus on reviving our nation's manufacturing sector. . . President Obama also addressed infrastructure development as one of the keys to creating jobs and spurring economic growth. Our nation's transportation infrastructure is weakening by the day, roads and bridges are deteriorating, and the traveling public's lives are at stake. It's critical we focus on making transportation safety a top priority, and with sound investments in our infrastructure we can do just that."

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): "I thought President Obama laid out a very good blueprint for how we can accelerate economic growth in our country to create jobs now and to lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next several decades. I think it's important for us to focus on rebuilding manufacturing jobs in our country, and to develop a labor force that can do the work that needs to be done. I also agree with the president that we need to focus on our own energy sources to meet our economic needs. All of that, I think, is very positive and would be good for the country. I hope the Congress will rise to the challenge and work with President Obama over the next several months."

Access the White House listing of comments (click here). Access the complete statements by clicking on the underlines above. [#All]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EIA 2012 Annual Energy Outlook Early Release Reference Case

2012-01-24T16:50:00.001-05:00

Jan 23: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) issued the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2012) Early Release Reference case, which provides updated projections for U.S. energy markets through 2035. In addition to a press release and tables that summarize the new projection, an Overview report is provided that addresses key findings and major changes in assumptions and results from the previous year's projection. The Early Release Overview specifically highlights the Reference case, which assumes no changes in current laws and regulations, thus serving as a starting point for analysis of potential policy changes or technology breakthroughs. The complete AEO2012, to be released this spring, will include many alternative cases in recognition of the uncertainty inherent in making projections about energy markets, which in part arises from assumptions about policies and other market drivers such as trends in prices and economic growth. Some key findings of the early report include:

Domestic crude oil production is expected to grow by more than 20 percent over the coming decade: Domestic crude oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. Over the next 10 years, continued development of tight oil combined with the development of offshore Gulf of Mexico resources are projected to push domestic crude oil production to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, a level not seen since 1994.

With modest economic growth, increased efficiency, growing domestic production, and continued adoption of nonpetroleum liquids, net petroleum imports make up a smaller share of total liquids consumption: U.S. dependence on imported petroleum liquids declines in the AEO2012 Reference case, primarily as a result of growth in domestic oil production of over 1 million barrels per day by 2020, an increase in biofuel use of over 1 million barrels per day crude oil equivalent by 2024, and modest growth in transportation sector demand through 2035. Net petroleum imports as a share of total U.S. liquid fuels consumed drop from 49 percent in 2010 to 38 percent in 2020 and 36 percent in 2035 in AEO2012.

U.S. production of natural gas is expected to exceed consumption early in the next decade: The United States is projected to become a net exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 2016, a net pipeline exporter in 2025, and an overall net exporter of natural gas in 2021. The outlook reflects increased use of LNG in markets outside of North America, strong domestic natural gas production, reduced pipeline imports and increased pipeline exports, and relatively low natural gas prices in the United States compared to other global markets.

Use of renewable fuels and natural gas for electric power generation rises: The natural gas share of electric power generation increases from 24 percent in 2010 to 27 percent in 2035, and the renewables share grows from 10 percent to 16 percent over the same period. In recent years, the U.S. electric power sector's historical reliance on coal-fired power plants has begun to decline. Over the next 25 years, the projected coal share of overall electricity generation falls to 39 percent, well below the 49-percent share seen as recently as 2007, because of slow growth in electricity demand, continued competition from natural gas and renewable plants, and the need to comply with new environmental regulations.

Total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions remain below their 2005 level through 2035: Energy-related CO2 emissions grow by 3 percent from 2010 to 2035, reaching 5,806 million metric tons in 2035. They are more than 7 percent below their 2005 level in 2020 and do not return to the 2005 level of 5,996 million metric tons by the end of the projection period. Emissions per capita fall by an average of 1 percent per year from 2005 to 2035, as growth in demand for transportation fuels is moderated by higher energy prices and Federal fuel economy standards. Proposed fuel economy standards covering model years 2017 through 2025 that are not included in the Reference case would further reduce projected energy use and emissions. Electricity-related emissions are tempered by appliance and lighting efficiency standards, State renewable portfolio standard requirements, competitive natural gas prices that dampen coal use by electric generators, and implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Other highlights of the AEO2012 Reference case projections:

World oil prices rise in the Reference case, as pressure from growth in global demand continues. In 2035, the average real price of crude oil in the Reference case is $146 per barrel in 2010 dollars. World liquids consumption grows from 87.1 million barrels per day in 2010 to 109.7 million barrels per day in 2035, driven by growing demand in China, India, the Middle East and other developing economies.
Total U.S. primary energy consumption, which was 101.4 quadrillion Btu in 2007, grows from 98.2 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 108.0 quadrillion Btu in 2035. The fossil fuel share of energy consumption falls from 83 percent of total U.S. energy demand in 2010 to 77 percent in 2035.
Net imports of energy meet a declining share of total U.S. energy demand as domestic energy production increases. The projected net import share of total U.S. energy consumption in 2035 is 13 percent, compared with 22 percent in 2010 and 29 percent in 2007.

EIA notes that the Reference case results shown in the AEO2012 Early Release will vary somewhat from those included in the complete Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) that will be released in spring 2012, because some data and model updates were not available for inclusion in the Early Release. In particular, the complete AEO2012 will include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2011; updated historical data and equations in the transportation sector, based on revised data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration; a new model for cement production in the industrial sector; a revised long-term macroeconomic projection based on an updated long-term projection from IHS Global Insight, Inc.; and an updated representation of biomass supply.

One of the more interesting factors in the AEO2012 report is a substantial reduction in the estimate of recoverable shale gas in the U.S. The report indicates that, "Cumulative natural gas production from 2010 through 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case is 7 percent higher than in AEO2011, even though the estimated natural gas resource base is lower. This primarily reflects increased shale gas production resulting from the application of recent technological advances, as well as continued drilling in shale plays with high concentrations of natural gas liquids and crude oil, which have a higher value in energy equivalent terms than dry natural gas. Production levels for tight gas and coalbed methane exceed those in the AEO2011 Reference case through 2035, making significant contributions to the overall increase in production. Offshore natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico fluctuates between 2.0 and 2.8 trillion cubic feet per year as new large projects directed toward liquids development are started over time.

"In the AEO2012 Reference case, the estimated unproved technically recoverable resource (TRR) of shale gas for the United States is 482 trillion cubic feet, substantially below the estimate of 827 trillion cubic feet in AEO2011. The decline largely reflects a decrease in the estimate for the Marcellus shale, from 410 trillion cubic feet to 141 trillion cubic feet. Both EIA and USGS have recently made significant revisions to their TRR estimates for the Marcellus shale. Drilling in the Marcellus accelerated rapidly in 2010 and 2011, so that there is far more information available today than a year ago. Indeed, the daily rate of Marcellus production doubled during 2011 alone. Using data though 2010, USGS updated its TRR estimate for the Marcellus to 84 trillion cubic feet, with a 90-percent confidence range from 43 to 144 trillion cubic feet -- a substantial increase over the previous USGS estimate of 2 trillion cubic feet dating from 2002. For AEO2012, EIA uses more recent drilling and production data available through 2011 and excludes production experience from the pre-shale era (before 2008). EIA's TRR estimate for the entire Northeast also includes TRR of 16 trillion cubic feet for the Utica shale, which underlies the Marcellus and is still relatively little explored. The complete AEO2012 publication will include a more in-depth examination of the factors that affect resource estimates."

Sierra Club issued a release commenting on the AEO2012 reports assessment of coal-fired electricity which is projected to continue in a steady decline in 2012, which they say will opening market space for clean energy. Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign said, "For many years the Energy Information Agency has exaggerated coal's prospects for the future, and every year has had to downgrade its projections. Today EIA again downgraded coal's future, though we know coal's future is even darker than EIA is predicting."

Sierra Club noted that EIA projects that at least 33,000 megawatts worth of existing coal-fired power plants are expected to retire in the coming decades, not including any retirements due to the recently-finalized mercury and air toxics standard from U.S. EPA. Sierra Club cited for reference that an average-sized coal-burning power plant is approximately 500 megawatts. Coal's market share of U.S. electricity production is expected to continue to drop, from 44 to 39 percent. Last year's EIA report thought coal would fall from 48 to 44 percent between 2010 and 2035. No new coal plants are predicted to be constructed in the time period, beyond those few that are already under construction.

In their release, Sierra Club indicated that while the EIA estimates that over the next 25 years approximately 33,000 megawatts of existing coal power will retire, they have identified over 38,000 megawatts of existing coal power that has retired or announced an upcoming retirement since January 2010 -- and more are expected soon. There are about 340,000 megawatts of coal in the United States as of January 2010. Nilles said, "Even today's EIA projections remain far too rosy for coal; we expect the vast majority of coal plants to be retired no later than 2030. We agree, however, with EIA's prediction that no new coal plants will break ground in the future because clean energy is more cost effective, and we expect even more coal plant retirements."

Access an announcement (click here). Access complete information and the AEO2012 report (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [#Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

President Denies Keystone XL Pipeline; TransCanada Will Re-Apply

2012-01-23T16:23:00.001-05:00

Jan 18: The Department of State (DOS) recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline [See WIMS 1/6/12] be denied and, that at this time, "the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest." The President concurred with the Department's recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest. The Department emphasized that its denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects.

In an announcement DOS indicated that since 2008, it has been conducting a "transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada's permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project." As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, on November 10, 2011, the Department announced that it could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information. Specifically, the Department called for an assessment of alternative pipeline routes that avoided the uniquely sensitive terrain of the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The Department estimated, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013. DOS said, "In consultations with the State of Nebraska and TransCanada, they agreed with the estimated timeline."

On December 23, 2011, the Congress passed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (the Act). The Act included a rider that provided 60 days for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. DOS said the allotted time was "insufficient for such a determination."

The President issued a brief statement on the DOS decision and said, "I received the Secretary of State's recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department's report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security -- including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico -- even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment."

The President issued a "Presidential Memorandum -- Implementing Provisions of the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 Relating to the Keystone XL Pipeline Permit." In the Memorandum, the President indicates, "I have determined, based upon your recommendation, including the State Department's view that 60 days is an insufficient period to obtain and assess the necessary information, that the Keystone XL pipeline project, as presented and analyzed at this time, would not serve the national interest. . . I direct you to submit the report to the Congress as specified in section 501(b)(2) of the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 and to issue a denial of the Keystone XL pipeline permit application."

TransCanada Corporation the developer of the project issued a statement saying it had received the DOS decision that the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL had been denied. Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014." The company said it expects that consideration of a renewed application would make use of the exhaustive record compiled over the past three plus years.

Girling continued saying, "Until this pipeline is constructed, the U.S. will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians and Americans are privileged to have. Thousands of jobs continue to hang in the balance if this project does not go forward. This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed." TransCanada said it will continue to work collaboratively with Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality on determining the safest route for Keystone XL that avoids the Sandhills. This process is expected to be complete in September or October of this year.

TransCanada has committed to a project labor agreement with the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Pipeline Contractors Association. The company said, "Any delay in approval of construction prevents this work from going to thousands of hard-working trades people. Girling added that TransCanada continues to believe in Keystone XL due to the overwhelming support the project has received from American and Canadian producers and U.S. refiners who signed 17 to 18 year contracts to ship over 600,000 barrels of oil per day to meet the needs of American consumers.

Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a release on January 20, reaffirming their "commitment to getting the Keystone XL pipeline built despite President Obama's decision this week to reject the project. Members expressed their deep disappointment in the president's choice to say no to a project that would create tens of thousands of jobs and bring nearly a million barrels of secure oil to this country each day." Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "We are absolutely committed -- as a Republican team -- to keep the Keystone XL pipeline on the front burner. The State Department has taken, as you know, over three years on this issue and we are ready for a green light and not a red light."

The Committee will be holding a hearing this week with the State Department testifying. Members will discuss a bill introduced by Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) to take the pipeline decision out of the president's hands. H.R.3548, the North American Energy Access Act, would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversight of the pipeline's permit and instruct the agency to review and approve the pipeline application within 30 days, and to work in coordination with the State of Nebraska to review and approve the route and environmental review developed by the state. Rep. Terry said, "The American people want us to put aside politics and do what is right. It seems to me that it makes more sense that we let the experts on pipelines make decisions on whether this is a safe and sound pipeline, as opposed to a political entity worried about November elections."

Ranking Member of the Committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, "Today, the Obama Administration rejected a dirty and dangerous tar sands oil pipeline, refusing to be bullied by the oil industry into approving the project in 60 days without even knowing where it would be built. Despite intense and misleading oil industry lobbying, Americans understand that what's good for the oil industry is not necessarily good for the American people. Keystone XL would boost tar sands development, which produces the dirtiest oil available, open up Asian markets to tar sands, and, if anything, increase gas prices. Keystone XL is a lose-lose proposition for energy security, gas prices, a safe climate, and a healthy environment."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue issued a statement indicating, "The President's decision sends a strong message to the business community and to investors: keep your money on the sidelines, America is not open for business. By placing politics over policy, the Obama administration is sacrificing tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs in the short term, and many more than that in the long term. Donohue said, "It is dumbfounding that President Obama's decision to deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit ignores his own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness "Road Map to Renewal" report. Issued yesterday, it recommends that the United States step up its game on energy and construct pipelines to deliver fuel as a key component of our economic recovery. Just as troubling, the President's decision will make us more dependent on oil from foreign nations that don't share our interests. He's also saying no to improving our relationship with our reliable and friendly ally to the north, Canada. American workers and consumers should be outraged. They deserve better than this politically-motivated decision."

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "The pipeline was rejected for all the right reasons. President Obama put the health and safety of the American people and our air, lands and water -- our national interest -- above the interests of the oil industry. His decision represents a triumph of truth over Big Oil's bullying tactics and its disinformation campaign with wildly exaggerated jobs claims. Rather than bringing America energy security, the pipeline would have transported dirty Canadian tar sands oil through America's heartlands -- for export to other countries.

"A decision on the pipeline proposal requires nothing less than a thorough and fair-minded analysis of its full effects on our environment and climate. But the schedule forced upon the Obama administration -- a 60-day rush to judgment -- left insufficient time to conduct that assessment. Pipeline proponents preordained this outcome. If TransCanada reapplies, Keystone XL will still face the same valid public concerns and fierce opposition as the first time. No matter how many times it is proposed, Keystone XL is not in the national interest.''

On January 18, NRDC issued a new report along with Oil Change International, a Washington, DC-based group dedicated to exposing the true cost of fossil fuels. The groups and report indicate that, "Existing Canadian pipelines in the United States are operating only at half-capacity now, making any new pipeline unnecessary, much less a 1,700-mile XL pipeline through America's heartlands that would threaten U.S. lands and waters." The report, Keystone XL Pipeline: Undermining U.S. Energy Security and Sending Tar Sands Overseas, and authors indicate that, "This pipeline would divert up to 800,000 barrels of oil a day from the Midwest to Latin America, Europe and other countries -- at a huge profit for the oil companies." They said, "Keystone XL will ship tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, where currently a quarter of the refinery output is exported. Keystone XL does nothing for U.S. energy security but plenty to boost exports and tax-free profits for Big Oil."

Access the DOS announcement (click here). Access the statement from the President (click here). Access the Presidential Memorandum (click here). Access the full text of the DOS press conference on the decision (click here). Access the release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada Keystone XL project website for additional information (click here). Access the release from the House GOP Energy and Commerce Committee and press conference video (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the statement from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the 72-page Council on Jobs and Competitiveness Report (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access a release and link to the report from NRDC, et al (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/KXL, #Energy/OilSands, #Energy/TarSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Huge Differences In Cost & Benefit Estimates Of Tier 3 Low Sulfur Rules

2012-01-13T16:31:00.001-05:00

Jan 12: A bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) joined in a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson expressing concern that EPA's Tier 3 standards will greatly increase the cost of gasoline and put jobs at risk at a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy.

On October 31, 2011, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), representing air pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States(formerly STAPPA and ALAPCO), released a report on the benefits and costs of implementing the their recommendations for Tier 3 motor vehicle and gasoline standards. NACAA indicated that the amount of air pollution that would be immediately reduced from lowering the sulfur content of gasoline to an average of 10-ppm is equivalent to removing approximately one in eight cars and light trucks from the roads. They said that result would come at a price of $0.008 -- eight-tenths of a cent per gallon. Such cleaner gasoline would also enable improved technologies on cars and light trucks that could yield substantial vehicle emissions reductions at a cost of about $150 per car [See WIMS 10/31/11].

Specifically, the concerned Senators said EPA is preparing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that will lower the sulfur content in gasoline from 30ppm to 10ppm -- and they said, "this comes at a high cost." Despite the estimates of NACAA, the Senators cite a study by Baker & O'Brien that estimates the capital and annual operating cost of a 10ppm standard at $17 billion and $13 billion, respectively. They said, "Depending on the stringency of the proposed rule, that could add 12 to 25 cents to each gallon of gasoline." Additionally, they indicated that "several fuel manufacturers will not likely be able to comply, which will force plant closures -- resulting in both direct and indirect job losses."

The Senators concluded their 3-page letter saying, ". . ."we urge EPA to reconsider the timing of Tier 3 standards for gasoline. We also ask you to provide Congress and the public with as much notice as possible in advance of any formal proposal. We support clean air, but EPA should provide adequate scientific justification for all aspect of the proposed rule, thoughtfully reflect on the results of the yet-to-be completed anti-backsliding study, and understand the cumulative effects of all existing and pending air regulations on families and workers."

Senator Murkowski said, "A high level of bipartisan concern has emerged over EPA's looming Tier 3 regulations. Gas prices are already high, especially in Alaska, and our nation's economy continues to struggle. Despite this, EPA has chosen to proceed with a rulemaking that could lead to added financial burden on families and businesses. I hope that Administrator Jackson will pay close and careful attention to the unintended negative impacts this rule could have, especially in combination with the rest of EPA's regulatory agenda." Senator Landrieu said, "I am deeply concerned that the EPA is crafting these new Tier 3 regulations without regard to the real-world consequences for American consumers and businesses. With Americans already feeling the pinch from high gas prices, these regulations stand to burden our country even further. I urge the EPA to consider the negative consequences that this rule could have on American families and our economy as a whole."

S. William Becker, NACAA's Executive Director had a very different view and said in October last year, "As NACAA's report reveals, reducing sulfur in gasoline would not only enable the use of improved emissions control technology on new cars and light trucks, it would also result in an overnight reduction in emissions from the existing fleet -- on the order of approximately 260,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) -- equivalent to taking 33 million cars off our nation's roads in 2017 when the program begins. I don't know of any other air pollution control strategy out there that can provide emissions reductions as significant and immediate as this."

NACAA indicated in its report that, to independently determine the cost implications of lower sulfur gasoline, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) contracted with an expert refinery consulting company, MathPro, to update and slightly modify an earlier study MathPro carried out in 2009. In this new study, MathPro estimates the cost of reducing sulfur in gasoline to 10 ppm under differing sets of assumptions.

NACAA indicated, "Based on the MathPro study, it appears the most reasonable, but still conservative, assumptions would be: All existing FCC post-treaters would require revamping to meet the 10-ppm sulfur standard; The average capital expenditure for revamping the fleet of FCC post-treaters is 30 percent of the expenditure for grassroots post-treaters (even though some of the existing units may require no revamping); and The target rate of return on refinery investments is 7 percent before tax. Using these conservative assumptions, MathPro concluded that the per-gallon price of 10-ppm sulfur fuel would be just $0.008 -- eight-tenths of a penny."

When the Baker & O'Brien study was release last summer, Bob Greco of American Petroleum Institute (API) said, "The new EPA requirements could be devastating to consumers and communities across the nation. Consumers would be hurt by the increased cost of fuel projected by the study, and the closing of refineries could put local economies at risk, meaning there would be fewer jobs. In addition, we would be forced to rely even more on foreign fuel supplies, and that can only weaken our nation's economy and national security."

National Petrochemical & Refiners Association President Charles Drevna said, "These regulations don't make sense environmentally or economically. The proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, hurt American consumers by adding billions of dollars to the cost of manufacturing gasoline, hurt communities and workers by threatening to put some fuel manufacturing plants out of business, and weaken America's economic and national security."

Access the release and letter from the concerned Senators (click here). Access the 96-page Baker & O'Brien study (click here). Access a release from NACAA (click here). Access the complete 32-page NACAA report (click here). Access a Jul 29 release from API (click here). [#Air, #Transport]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

America Is Thinking Too Small On Energy Efficiency

2012-01-12T16:40:00.000-05:00

Jan 12: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) indicates in a major new report that, "America is thinking too small when it comes to energy efficiency, while also making the mistake of 'crowding out' economically beneficial investments in energy efficiency by focusing on riskier and more expensive bids to develop new energy sources. The report, The Long-Term Energy Efficiency Potential: What the Evidence Suggests, outlines three scenarios under which the U.S. could either continue on its current path or cut energy consumption by the year 2050 almost 60 percent, add nearly two million net jobs in 2050, and save energy consumers as much as $400 billion per year (the equivalent of $2600 per household annually).

According to ACEEE, the secret to major economic gains from energy efficiency is a more productive investment pattern of increased investments in energy efficiency, which would allow lower investments in power plants and other supply infrastructure, thereby substantially lowering overall energy expenditures on an economy-wide basis in the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric power sectors.

ACEEE Director of Economic and Social Analysis John A. "Skip" Laitner said, "The U.S. would prosper more if investments in new energy were not crowding out needed investments in energy efficiency. The evidence suggests that without a greater emphasis on the more efficient use of energy resources, there may be as many as three jokers in the deck that will threaten the robustness of our nation's future economy. These include the many uncertainties surrounding the availability of conventional and relatively inexpensive energy supplies, a slowing rate of energy productivity gains and therefore economic productivity, and a variety of potential climate constraints that may create further economic impacts of their own. Given all of this, large-scale energy efficiency advances are by far the smartest investment for America."

ACEEE Executive Director Steven Nadel said, "Large-scale energy efficiency advances will require major investments. But the good news is that the investments will generate a significant return in the form of large energy bill savings. After paying for the program costs and making the necessary investments as we pay for them over time, the economy will benefit from a net energy bill savings that ranges from 12 to 16 trillion dollars cumulatively from 2012 through 2050. In other words, the energy efficiency scenarios outlined in our report will spur an annual net energy bill savings that might range up to about $2600 per household annually in constant 2009 dollars."

Examples of potential large-scale energy efficiency savings identified by ACEEE include the following:

Electric Power -- "Our current system of generating and delivering electricity to U.S. homes and businesses is an anemic 31 percent energy efficient. That is, for every three units of coal or other fuel we use to generate the power, we manage to deliver less than one unit of electricity to our homes and businesses. What the U.S. wastes in the generation of electricity is more than Japan needs to power its entire economy. What is even more astonishing is that our current level of (in)efficiency is essentially unchanged in the half century since 1960, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower spent his last year in the White House."
Transportation -- "The fuel economy of conventional petroleum-fueled vehicles continues to grow while hybrid, electric, and fuel cell vehicles gain large shares, totaling nearly three-quarters of all new light-duty vehicles in 2050 in the report's middle scenario. Aviation, rail, and shipping energy use declines substantially in this scenario through a combination of technological and operational improvements. In the most aggressive scenario, there is a shift toward more compact development patterns, and greater investment in alternative modes of travel and other measures that reduce both passenger and freight vehicle miles traveled. This scenario also phases out conventional light-duty gasoline vehicles entirely, increases hybrid and fuel cell penetration for heavy-duty vehicles, and reduces aviation energy use by 70 percent."
Buildings -- "In residential and commercial buildings the evidence suggests potential reductions of space heating and cooling needs as the result of building shell improvements of up to 60 percent in existing buildings, and 70-90 percent in new buildings. The ACEEE scenarios also incorporate advanced heating and cooling systems (e.g., gas and ground-source air conditioners and heat pumps, and condensing furnaces and boilers), decreased energy distribution losses, advanced solid-state lighting, and significantly more efficient appliances."
Industry -- "In the industrial sector, energy efficiency opportunities reduce 2050 energy use by up to half, coming less from equipment efficiency and more from optimization of complex systems. The ACEEE analysis focuses on process optimization in the middle scenario, but also anticipates even greater optimization of entire supply chains in the most aggressive scenario, allowing for more efficient use of feedstocks and elimination of wasted production."

In response to the question: "Are such advances in energy efficiency realistic?" the ACEEE report points out, the U.S. already has achieved considerable advances in the energy efficiency context and is poised to do more: "The U.S. economy has tripled in size since 1970 and three-quarters of the energy needed to fuel that growth came from an amazing variety of efficiency advances -- not new energy supplies. Indeed, the overwhelming emphasis in current policy debates on finding new energy supplies is such that emphasis on new supplies may be crowding out investments and innovations that can help to achieve greater levels of energy productivity. Going forward, the current economic recovery, and our future economic prosperity, will depend more on new energy efficiency behaviors and investments than we've seen in the last 40 years."

Access a release from ACEEE (click here). Access the complete 96-page report (click here, free registration required). [#Energy/Efficiency]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

DC Judge Vacates EPA's Boiler MACT & CISWI Delay Notice

2012-01-11T16:10:00.001-05:00

Jan 9: U.S. Washington, DC, District Court Judge Paul Friedman has issued a critical 42-page ruling regarding U.S. EPA's recently proposed Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators (i.e. "Boiler MACT" rules, Proposed rules) [See WIMS 12/2/11]. EPA had proposed to delay finalization of the rules until the spring 2012, including the rule for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (i.e.Boiler MACT) and for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI).

However, in the case of Sierra Club v. Jackson (U.S. EPA), Case No. 11-1278, the Court vacated EPA's decision to delay. The Court indicated it would "grant in part and deny in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. It will enter judgment for EPA on Claim 1 and Claim 2 and for Sierra Club on Claim 3. As a result, the Court will declare unlawful EPA's Delay Notice will vacate the Delay Notice, and will remand the Delay Notice to EPA for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion." Petitions for review of the decision have already been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit and the matter may be addressed quickly by the Appeals Court.

The Court explains that after EPA initially issued its Boiler and CISWI rules which were being challenged in the Court of Appeals, ". . .on May 18, 2011, two days before the Boiler Rule and the CISWI Rule were to go into effect, EPA issued a notice, referred to by the agency as the 'Delay Notice,' staying the effective date of both rules 'until the proceedings for judicial review of these rules [in the court of appeals] are completed or the EPA completes its reconsideration of the rules, whichever is earlier[.]' 76 FED.REG. at 28,664. In the Delay Notice, EPA made explicit that it was staying the effective date of these two rules 'pursuant to the APA[, that is, the Administrative Procedure Act], rather than . . . the Clean Air Act.' Id. at 28,663. Specifically, EPA stated that it was acting pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 of the APA, rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act." Sierra Club then filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2011 to challenge the validity of EPA's Delay Notice.

Sierra Club argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on all three of its claims and requests that the Court declare the Delay Notice unlawful and vacate it. First, Sierra Club contends that the Delay Notice is unlawful because EPA promulgated it without providing the public with notice and an opportunity for comment; Second, Sierra Club contends that EPA lacked the authority to issue the Delay Notice; And third, Sierra Club contends that the Delay Notice is arbitrary and capricious for "at least four reasons, each of which independently requires vacatur." EPA opposes Sierra Club's motion for summary judgment and has filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment. As EPA describes it, the agency had the authority to promulgate the Delay Notice; the agency provided adequate justification for the Delay Notice; and the Delay Notice is not a rule and therefore is not subject to notice and comment requirements.

The Court ruled on Claim 1: ". . .the Court concludes that the Delay Notice does not constitute substantive rulemaking, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(4), and therefore is not subject to notice and comment requirements. See id. §§ 553(b), (c). The Court will grant EPA's motion for summary judgment on Claim 1 and will deny Sierra Club's motion for summary judgment on that claim." On Claim 2: "The Court therefore concludes that EPA had the authority to issue the Delay Notice under Section 705 of the APA. The Court will grant EPA's motion for summary judgment on Claim 2 and will deny Sierra Club's motion for summary judgment on that claim."

And, on Claim 3: "The Court concludes that the Delay Notice is arbitrary and capricious for three separate reasons: (1) the standard for a stay at the agency level is the same as the standard for a stay of agency action by a court, and EPA has not even attempted to justify its decision under that standard; (2) EPA is bound by its own precedents to apply the four-part test for stays and injunctions unless it provides a reasoned decision for its change of position, which it has not done; and (3) because EPA relies on Section 705 authorizing it to stay agency action 'pending judicial review,' the reasons it articulates to justify the stay must be based on the underlying litigation in the court of appeals, which they are not."

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy and Resources Policy Chip Yost issued a statement on the decision saying, "The court's ruling to revoke the stay of the Boiler MACT and Incinerator rules will severely harm manufacturers' competitiveness, add to their uncertainty and cost vital jobs. It is already 20 percent more expensive to manufacture in the U.S. compared to our trade partners, and regulations such as Boiler MACT continue to set us back. The ruling by the court underscores the critical need for Congress to pass legislation to address the damaging Boiler MACT and Incinerator regulations. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act [H.R.2250, See WIMS 10/14/11] received bipartisan support when it passed the House last October, and manufacturers urge the Senate to act now to save jobs. Manufacturers are looking to Washington for policies that will eliminate the uncertainty of harmful regulations such as Boiler MACT and enable them to invest, grow and create jobs."

House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a release stating, "By vacating EPA's stay, yesterday's ruling speeds the rules' compliance schedules, which were already unworkable. As a result of the ruling, facilities will be forced to determine how to implement the rules even though they are still being reconsidered." Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "The ruling increases the already significant regulatory and legal uncertainty surrounding these complex rules, which by EPA's own estimates impose new costs in excess of $5 billion. It is increasingly clear that Congress must intervene to provide regulatory relief. The House-passed EPA Regulatory Relief Act provides EPA the framework to fix these rules and offers American businesses the flexibility and certainty they need to invest and create jobs. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation so we can put an end to the uncertainty and finally get the EPA to move forward in a way that protects jobs."

Access the complete ruling (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access the release from House Republicans (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

NAS Report Explores Municipal Wastewater As Drinking Water

2012-01-10T16:20:00.001-05:00

Jan 10: The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council has issued a report entitled, Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. According to a release, with recent advances in technology and design, treating municipal wastewater and reusing it for drinking water, irrigation, industry, and other applications could significantly increase the nation's total available water resources, particularly in coastal areas facing water shortages.

The report also notes that the reuse of treated wastewater, also known as reclaimed water, to augment drinking water supplies has significant potential for helping meet future needs. Moreover, new analyses suggest that the possible health risks of exposure to chemical contaminants and disease-causing microbes from wastewater reuse do not exceed, and in some cases may be significantly lower than, the risks of existing water supplies. R. Rhodes Trussell, chair of the committee that wrote the report and president of Trussell Technologies, Pasadena, CA said, "Wastewater reuse is poised to become a legitimate part of the nation's water supply portfolio given recent improvements to treatment processes. Although reuse is not a panacea, wastewater discharged to the environment is of such quantity that it could measurably complement water from other sources and management strategies."

The report examines a wide range of reuse applications, including potable water, non-potable urban and industrial uses, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and ecological enhancement. The committee found that many communities have already implemented water reuse projects -- such as irrigating golf courses and parks or providing industrial cooling water in locations near wastewater reclamation plants -- that are well-established and generally accepted. Potable water reuse projects account for only a small fraction of the volume of water currently being reused. However, many drinking water treatment plants draw water from a source that contains wastewater discharged by a community located upstream; this practice is not officially acknowledged as potable reuse.

The report outlines wastewater treatment technologies for mitigating chemical and microbial contaminants, including both engineered and natural treatment systems. These processes can be used to tailor wastewater reclamation plants to meet the quality requirements of intended reuse applications. The concentrations of chemicals and microbial contaminants in reuse projects designed to augment drinking water supplies can be comparable to or lower than those commonly present in many drinking water supplies. The committee emphasized the need for process reliability and careful monitoring to ensure that all reclaimed water meets the appropriate quality objectives for its use.

The committee indicated that the costs of water reuse for potable and non-potable applications vary widely because they depend on site-specific factors. Water reuse projects tend to be more expensive than most water conservation options and less expensive than seawater desalination and other new supply alternatives. Although the costs of reclaimed water are often higher than current water sources, the report urges water authorities to consider other costs and benefits in addition to monetary expenditures when assessing reuse projects. For example, water reuse systems used in conjunction with a water conservation program could be effective in reducing seasonal peak demands on the drinking water system. Depending on the specific designs and pumping requirements, reuse projects could also have a larger or smaller carbon footprint than existing supply alternatives or reduce water flows to downstream users and ecosystems.

The report indicates that water reuse regulations differ by state and are not based on risk-assessment methods. Adjustments to the Federal regulatory framework could help ensure a high level of public health protection, provide a consistent minimum level of protection across the nation, and increase public confidence in potable and non-potable water reuse. The report notes that existing legislative tools could be applied to improve the quality of water for reuse, including updating the National Pretreatment Program's list of priority pollutants to include a wider inventory of known toxic substances. Also, it lists 14 areas of research to help guide the country on how to apply water reuse appropriately. Such research would require improved coordination among federal and nongovernmental organizations.

Access a release from NAS (click here). Access the complete 200-page report (click here). Access links to additional information on the report (click here). [#Water, #Drink]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Climate-Related Global Changes Impact Trillions In Investments

2012-01-09T16:24:00.000-05:00

Jan 5: The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council indicated that a draft 10-year strategic plan (i.e. 10-Year U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan) [See WIMS 1/5/12] for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) -- which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government -- is "evolving in the right direction," but several key issues could strengthen the planning efforts.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP's scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step. However, the committee said, "the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed. There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program."

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use. It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency's individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said. Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions. For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The report emphasizes that, "The Plan says that the decisions being made today about systems affected by global change

are worth billions of dollars. This is both a drastic underestimate and an imprecise argument for establishing the importance of foundational research in adaptation and mitigation. The countless decisions that are being made -- related to infrastructure, natural resource use, water management, agriculture, zoning, and development of our nation's energy system could easily account for

trillions, rather than billions, of dollars in investment in the coming decades. These decisions have the potential to be made more effectively with better knowledge and foresight about future global change, about ways to reduce the inherent vulnerabilities of these systems, and about the ways in which adaptation or mitigation efforts could affect these systems. The Plan does not articulate these sorts of arguments clearly or with sufficient documentation."

Access a release from NAS (click here). Access the complete NAS 72-page report from NAS (click here). Access an announcement from USGCRP (click here). Access more information about the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program (click here). Access the complete 81-page Strategy (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Countdown Is On For Keystone XL; But How Many Jobs?

2012-01-06T16:23:00.001-05:00

Jan 5: On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law a bill requiring approval of the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days unless he determines the pipeline would not serve the national interest. On January 4, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee posted its new Keystone XL clock to track how much time has passed since the day the President signed the bill demanding action on the project that they say will "create tens of thousands of jobs and significantly increase America's energy security."

The President reluctantly agreed to the Keystone XL provision that was attached by Republicans to the payroll tax reduction bill which he supported [See WIMS 12/16/11]. Earlier, the President said he would veto any Keystone XL amendments to the bill and had delayed the Keystone XL decision until further environmental review could be made to satisfy major concerns raised by the Nebraska Governor and environmental groups [See WIMS 12/8/11]. The delay was expected to extend well into 2013, while the various agencies examined in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. [See WIMS 11/14/11 & WIMS 11/11/11].

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "The clock is now ticking, and soon, President Obama must finally make a decision on the long-awaited Keystone XL pipeline. After waiting more than three years for this pipeline while the country faces prolonged unemployment, the American people are fed up with the president's inaction on a project that can quickly create jobs. The president is now required by law to approve the project unless he believes it is not in the national interest, and with millions of Americans still out of work this New Year, our national interest would clearly be well served when the president says yes to tens of thousands of new shovel-ready jobs. Republicans and Democrats alike agree this is a win-win for America."

During the heat of the highly controversial debate on the issue a principle argument has been the number of jobs created by the project. The State Department estimated the number of construction jobs at 5,000 to 6,000; however, as the debate has continued the number of jobs to be created by the project has increased to 20,000; to tens of thousands; to hundreds of thousands and has high as 250,000 or more. Most of the high-end estimates have been reported by TransCanada, the project developer.

A recent study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute entitled, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, provides an in-depth look at the numbers and the uncertainty surrounding many of estimates. The 40-page paper indicates, "The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands -- of good, well-paying jobs for American workers." The main points in the briefing paper are summarized as follows:

The industry's US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically loweronly around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department.
The company's claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.
The industry's claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work.
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $24 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity.
Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.
By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

The paper concludes, "Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. As noted. . . it is unfortunate that the numbers generated by TransCanada, the industry, and the Perryman study have been subject to so little scrutiny, because they clearly inflate the projections for the numbers of direct, indirect, and long-term induced jobs that KXL might expect to create. What is being offered by the proponents is advocacy to build support for KXL, rather than serious research aimed to inform public debate and responsible decision making. By repeating inflated job numbers, the supporters of KXL."

Access a release from House Energy and Commerce Committee GOP leadership (click here). Access the House Energy and Commerce Committee tracking clock and related information (click here). Access the complete Cornell paper (click here). Access a lengthy StarTribune/Washington Post article "Fact checker: Keystone pipeline jobs claims" (click here). Access a pro-industry article on the KXL project from the Washington Times (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2055 (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/KXL]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Lacks Information & Resources To Manage Nanomaterial Risks

2012-01-05T15:36:00.001-05:00

Dec 29: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report entitled, EPA Needs to Manage Nanomaterial Risks More Effectively (No. 12-P0162, December 29, 2011). OIG said the purpose of the review was to determine how effectively EPA is managing the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials.

OIG indicates that nanomaterials are currently used in a wide variety of applications, including consumer products, health care, transportation, energy, and agriculture. The Agency considers nanomaterials as chemical substances that are controlled at the scale of approximately one-billionth of a meter. EPA has the authority, through several environmental statutes, to regulate nanomaterials. Although the development of nanomaterials and nanomaterial-enhanced products is expanding rapidly, the health implications of nanomaterials have not yet been determined.

OIG found that "EPA does not currently have sufficient information or processes to effectively manage the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials but currently lacks the environmental and human health exposure and toxicological data to do so effectively." The Agency proposed a policy under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to identify new pesticides being registered with nanoscale materials. After minimal industry participation in a voluntary data collection program, the Agency has proposed mandatory reporting rules for nanomaterials under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and is also developing proposed rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

However, OIG said "even if mandatory reporting rules are approved, the effectiveness of EPA's management of nanomaterials remains in question for a number of reasons" including:

Program offices do not have a formal process to coordinate the dissemination and utilization of the potentially mandated information.
EPA is not communicating an overall message to external stakeholders regarding policy changes and the risks of nanomaterials.
EPA proposes to regulate nanomaterials as chemicals and its success in managing nanomaterials will be linked to the existing limitations of those applicable statutes.
EPA's management of nanomaterials is limited by lack of risk information and reliance on industry-submitted data.

OIG said, "These issues present significant barriers to effective nanomaterial management when combined with existing resource challenges. If EPA does not improve its internal processes and develop a clear and consistent stakeholder communication process, the Agency will not be able to assure that it is effectively managing nanomaterial risks. OIG concludes by recommending that, "the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention develop a process to assure effective dissemination and coordination of nanomaterial information across relevant program offices. The Agency agreed with our recommendation and provided a corrective action plan with milestone dates."

On January 4, 2012, the Nanotechnology Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a statement about the OIG report. Jay West, senior director of Chemical Products & Technology at ACC said, "The Nanotechnology Panel feels that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) has demonstrated leadership in nanotechnology management and that the agency overall has made an enormous investment of time and talent in this area. We were surprised by OIG's assertion that EPA is not communicating an overall message to external stakeholders regarding policy changes and information about nanomaterials.

"We agree with OIG that the agency should have an internally consistent and coordinated approach across all offices, and are supportive of the recommendation that EPA develop an inter-office process for sharing information about nanomaterials. Creating a single public website about nanotechnology management, as OIG recommends, is one possible outcome of this information sharing and could help refute the notion that there is a lack of data about the potential health and environmental effects of nanomaterials and insufficient action being taken by EPA."

In a related matter, on December 21, a coalition of nonprofit consumer safety and environmental groups sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the first lawsuit over the health and environmental risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. The lawsuit demands FDA respond to a petition the public interest organizations filed with the Agency in 2006, nearly six years ago. The coalition is led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), on behalf of fellow plaintiffs Friends of the

Earth, Food and Water Watch, the Center for Environmental Health, the ETC Group, and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy.

The eighty-page petition documents the scientific evidence of nanomaterial risks stemming from their unpredictable toxicity and seemingly unlimited mobility. The 2006 petition requested FDA take several regulatory actions, including requiring nano-specific product labeling and health and safety testing, and undertaking an analysis of the environmental and health impacts of nanomaterials in products approved by the Agency. Nanomaterials in sunscreens, one of the largest sectors of the nano-consumer product market, were also a focus of the action. The petitioners called on the agency to regulate nano-sunscreens to account for their novel ingredients rather than assume their safety, and to pull such sunscreens from the market until and unless the agency approves them as new drug products.

The groups said that since 2006, numerous studies and reports, including agency publications by EPA, OIG, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, acknowledge significant data gaps concerning nanomaterials' potential effects on human health and the environment. Most troubling are studies using mice that show that nano-titanium dioxide when inhaled and when eaten can cause changes in DNA that affect the brain function and may cause tumors and developmental problems in offspring. One study found titanium dioxide nanoparticles were found in the placenta, fetal liver and fetal brain.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch said, "It is unacceptable that the FDA continues to allow unregulated and unlabeled nanomaterials to be used in products consumers use every day. It is past time for this agency to live up to its mission and protect public health by assessing the health and environmental risks of nanomaterials, and to require labeling so that consumers know where these new materials are being used."

Access the complete 28-page report from OIG (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to more information from ACC on nanotechnology (click here). Access a release from CTA and the coalition (click here). Access the coalition complaint (click here). Access the coalition 2006 petition (click here). [#Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

NRC Approves Westinghouse's AP1000 Nuclear Reactor Design

2012-01-04T16:46:00.001-05:00

Dec 22: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to approve a rule certifying an amended version of Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design for use in the United States. The amended certification, which will be incorporated into the NRC's regulations, will be valid for 15 years. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said, "The Commission is able to reach this final step in approving the amended AP1000 reactor design due to the staff's dedicated work ensuring the design meets NRC's safety requirements. The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials."

The Commission also found good cause to make the rule immediately effective once it is published in the Federal Register. NRC rules normally become effective 30 days after publication. The Federal Register notice and the Commission's directions to the staff on publishing the approved rule will include a discussion on the good cause finding. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2011 [76 FR 82079-82103].

The design certification process provides for public participation and early resolution of safety issues for proposed reactor designs. NRC certification, in the form of a final rule, means the design meets the Agency's applicable safety requirements. If an applicant for a nuclear power plant license references a certified design, the applicant need not submit safety information for the design. Instead, the license application and the NRC's safety review would address the remaining safety issues specific to the proposed nuclear power plant.

The AP1000 is a 1,100 megawatt electric pressurized-water reactor that includes passive safety features that would cool down the reactor after an accident without the need for human intervention. Westinghouse submitted an application for certification of the original AP1000 standard plant design on March 28, 2002; the NRC issued a rule certifying that design on Jan. 27, 2006. Westinghouse submitted an application to amend the AP1000 on May 27, 2007. The NRC's extensive technical review of the amendment request focused on ensuring the agency's safety requirements have been met.

NRC indicated that the transparent process, including input from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, led to the NRC issuing a final safety evaluation report on the amended AP1000 in August. The NRC issued a proposed rule for the amended design in January. Stakeholders provided more than 12,000 comments on the proposed rule; the NRC staff considered these comments in developing the final rule.

The NRC said it is currently reviewing six Combined License applications that reference the amended AP1000 design. The NRC has certified three other standard reactor designs: the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor; System 80+; and AP600. The Agency is currently reviewing applications to certify the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor and the EPR pressurized-water reactor.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu issued a statement in support of the NRC decision to certify the AP1000 nuclear reactor design, which DOE indicated is a significant step towards constructing a new generation of U.S. nuclear reactors. In February 2010, the Obama Administration announced the offer of a conditional commitment for a $8.33 billion loan guarantee for the construction and operation of two AP1000 reactors at Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generation Plant in Burke, Georgia [See WIMS 2/17/10 & WIMS 2/16/10]. Secretary Chu said, "The Administration and the Energy Department are committed to restarting America's nuclear industry -- creating thousands of jobs in the years ahead and powering our nation's homes and businesses with domestic, low-carbon energy. Today's decision certifying the AP1000 reactor design marks an important milestone towards constructing the first U.S. nuclear reactors in three decades."

Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, issued a statement on the NRC's approval saying, "Today's unanimous decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor design speeds up momentum towards expanding the use of clean, safe, and reliable nuclear energy in the United States. With the approval of the AP1000 design, the NRC may now issue a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two new reactors at Southern Company's Plant Vogtle, as well as two new reactors at a plant in South Carolina. The issuance of a COL for these projects would be the first issued for new construction of a reactor in 34 years.

"The AP1000 contains the newest and best technology available. The design was thoroughly tested by the NRC and found to be able to withstand a multitude of scenarios, from earthquakes to plane crashes. The approval of this design clears the way for future expansion and construction of nuclear plants across the nation, allowing Americans to benefit from nuclear energy for decades to come and creating thousands of skilled jobs. I urge the NRC to issue the licenses for the two pending applications expeditiously."

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) released a lengthy release and statement regarding the NRC approval of the final rule for the Westinghouse AP1000 design and which he said also granted a rule change requested by Southern Company to allow construction to begin before the NRC staff have incorporated and published all reactor design changes adopted by the Commission. Rep. Markey said that one of NRC's longest-serving staff warned in NRC documents that the reactor's containment could shatter "like a glass cup" due to flaws in the design of the shield building if impacted by an earthquake or commercial aircraft. In the publicly released votes on the matter, Chairman Greg Jaczko disapproved the proposal to allow the acceleration of reactor construction, Commissioner George Apostolakis voted to approve it, and Commissioner William Magwood's vote did not refer to it. In the final vote, Chairman Jaczko was overridden by his colleagues.

Rep. Markey said, "Today, the NRC has presented its holiday gifts to the nuclear industry. Instead of doing all they should to protect nuclear reactors against seismically-induced ground acceleration, these Commissioners voted to approve the acceleration of reactor construction. While they continue to slow walk the implementation of recommendations of the NRC professional staff's Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima, they have fast-tracked construction of a reactor whose shield building could 'shatter like a glass cup' if impacted by an earthquake or other natural or man-made impact."

Access a release from NRC (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access more information about the amended AP1000 design review (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the statement from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the release and statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access links to the Commission voting records on the AP1000 approval (click here). [# [#ENERGY/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA issues Final Mercury & Air Toxics Standards With Provisos

2012-01-03T16:35:00.001-05:00

Dec 21: As expected and in response to a court deadline, only a few days late, U.S. EPA issued the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (a.k.a. MATS or "Utility MACT) [See WIMS 11/29/11], the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. EPA said the standards will "slash emissions of these dangerous pollutants by relying on widely available, proven pollution controls that are already in use at more than half of the nation's coal-fired power plants." The Agency estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America's children grow up healthier preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year. EPA said it estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, the American public will see up to $9 in health benefits. The total health and economic benefits of this standard are estimated to be as much as $90 billion annually.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health and especially for the health of our children. With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance."

In a rare accompanying action which attempts to respond to various industry and Republican concerns, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum to the EPA Administrator entitled, "Flexible Implementation of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule." The Memorandum indicates in part, "The MATS Rule can be implemented through the use of demonstrated, existing pollution control technologies. The United States is a global market leader in the design and manufacture of these technologies, and it is anticipated that U.S. firms and workers will provide much of the equipment and labor needed to meet the substantial investments in pollution control that the standards are expected to spur. . .

"Analyses conducted by the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) indicate that the MATS Rule is not anticipated to compromise electric generating resource adequacy in any region of the country. The Clean Air Act offers a number of implementation flexibilities, and the EPA has a long and successful history of using those flexibilities to ensure a smooth transition to cleaner technologies. The Clean Air Act provides 3 years from the effective date of the MATS Rule for sources to comply with its requirements. In addition, section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act allows the issuance of a permit granting a source up to one additional year where necessary for the installation of controls. As you stated in the preamble to the MATS Rule, this additional fourth year should be broadly available to sources, consistent with the requirements of the law. . . The EPA has concluded that 4 years should generally be sufficient to install the necessary emission control equipment, and DOE has issued analysis consistent with that conclusion. While more time is generally not expected to be needed, the Clean Air Act offers other important flexibilities as well. . ."

The President indicates that, "To address any concerns with respect to electric reliability while assuring MATS' public health benefits, I direct you to take the following actions:

"1. Building on the information and guidance that you have provided to the public, relevant stakeholders, and permitting authorities in the preamble of the MATS Rule, work with State and local permitting authorities to make the additional year for compliance with the MATS Rule provided under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act broadly available to sources, consistent with law, and to invoke this flexibility expeditiously where justified.

"2. Promote early, coordinated, and orderly planning and execution of the measures needed to implement the MATS Rule while maintaining the reliability of the electric power system. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, this process should be designed to "promote predictability and reduce uncertainty," and should include engagement and coordination with DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State utility regulators, Regional Transmission Organizations, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and regional electric reliability organizations, other grid planning authorities, electric utilities, and other stakeholders, as appropriate.

"3. Make available to the public, including relevant stakeholders, information concerning any anticipated use of authorities: (a) under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act in the event that additional time to comply with the MATS Rule is necessary for the installation of technology; and (b) under section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act in the event that additional time to comply with the MATS Rule is necessary to address a specific and documented electric reliability issue. This information should describe the process for working with entities with relevant expertise to identify circumstances where electric reliability concerns might justify allowing additional time to comply."

    EPA indicated it estimates that manufacturing, engineering, installing and maintaining the pollution controls to meet these standards will provide employment for thousands, potentially including 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.

    EPA said power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, cyanide, and a range of other dangerous pollutants, and are responsible for half of the mercury and over 75 percent of the acid gas emissions in the United States. EPA also indicated that more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy pollution control technologies that will help them meet these achievable standards. Once final, these standards will level the playing field by ensuring the remaining plants -- about 40 percent of all coal fired power plants -- take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants.

    EPA indicated that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued earlier this year [See related article below], are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s. EPA said that combined, the two rules are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The two programs are an investment in public health that will provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs. EPA also released two summaries of support comments from organizations, medical associations, environmental organizations, House & Senate members and others [See links below].

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue issued a statement saying, "We are tremendously disappointed with the administration's decision to ignore the significant risks that will result from the implementation timeline of the Utility MACT rule. In the final rule, the administration acknowledged the need to provide utilities additional time to comply. However, without any certainty that utilities will actually be able to secure additional time in the future, the rule as currently issued could threaten America's electricity reliability, global competitiveness, and job creation. The Utility MACT rule is unprecedented in its size and scope and could literally leave our nation's economy in the dark.

"We wholeheartedly share this and previous administrations' goals of protecting public health and the environment, but the rushed implementation of this rule could undermine the nation's economic recovery. Utility companies and the independent organizations responsible for the reliability of the electric grid have expressed their grave concerns about this rule for months. Yet the final rule, like the earlier proposed rule, provides no certain additional time. The rule will require power plants to be shut down, significantly modified, or replaced, and for gas pipeline and electric transmission infrastructure to be built. Making these sweeping changes to business operations is a long-term process and it is unrealistic to think businesses can comply with this rule within three years, with an uncertain prospect for limited additional time, particularly in light of the significant regulatory burdens companies will face in siting and permitting these large projects. We urge the administration to reconsider the unrealistic implementation timetable for the Utility MACT rule and the effects it will have on American businesses of all sizes. Jobs, our economy, and the reliability of our electricity grid are at stake."

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) President Tom Kuhn issued a statement saying, "EPA's MACT rule is the most expensive rule in the agency's history. It will require a significant number of electric generating units to design, obtain approval for and install complex controls or replacements in a very short timeframe. In some cases, it will mean that new transmission and natural gas pipelines will have to be built. EPA has made useful technical changes from its original proposal. Nevertheless, we believe the Administration is underestimating the complexity of implementing this rule in such a short period of time, which can create reliability challenges and even higher costs to customers. The Administration is not using all the available authorities in the Clean Air Act to coordinate implementation, to ensure electric reliability, and to avoid excessive costs."

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders, including Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) also commented on the new rules. Chairman Upton said, "Electricity not only lights our homes, it powers all sectors of our economy, including our businesses, hospitals, communication systems and critical infrastructure. Analyses predict EPA's rules will force the premature retirement of power plants that are needed to provide affordable, reliable power to consumers and our growing economy. Other plants will require multi-million dollar retrofits that will result in higher electricity bills. I am concerned the administration decided to issue this rule without a comprehensive analysis assessing how it will affect jobs and the price and reliability of electricity. Under the rules, parts of the country face very real threats of rolling brownouts and blackouts. Most concerning is the tremendous impact this rule will have on low-income families who are struggling just to keep the lights on." Representative Whitfield said, "Not only has President Obama's regulatory agenda made it harder for new electricity generation to be built, but these new regulations will increase energy prices for Americans who can least afford to pay more to light and heat their homes, and for businesses that need reliable, affordable energy to compete globally. These rules hurt consumers, they hurt businesses, and they hurt jobs."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the Presidential Memorandum (click here). Access the EPA MATS website with extensive background and details and state-by-state benefits (click here). Access supporting comments (click here); and (click here). Access the U.S. Chamber statement (click here). Access the statement from EEI (click here). Access the statements from Reps. Upton & Whitefield (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

WIMS Environmental News Blogs

2011-12-22T14:33:00.001-05:00

While we're on break it's a great time to check out our WIMS Environmental News Blogs -- 24/7 Environmental News. . .

We'll be back on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

Happy Holidays

2011-12-19T13:33:00.001-05:00

Subscribers & Readers Note:

WIMS will be off the next two weeks for our annual Christmas/New Year's holiday break and return on Tuesday, January 3, 2012, to begin our 32nd year.

We wish all of our subscribers & readers a happy and safe holiday season and wish you well in the coming new year. Thank you all for your continuing support.

Spending Bill Deal Should Avoid Shutdown; Some Riders Removed

2011-12-16T16:30:00.001-05:00

Dec 16: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement after meeting with House Republicans this morning regarding the vote expected later today on a "bipartisan, bicameral government funding agreement." The Speaker said, "The House will vote today on bipartisan, bicameral legislation that funds our government and -- for the first time in modern history -- cuts discretionary spending for the second year in a row. Congress is leading by example by cutting our own budget -- again -- and saving taxpayer dollars by eliminating federal programs. The bill provides for a pay raise for our troops. And there are no earmarks in this bill.

"Above all, this funding bill reflects our ongoing commitment to creating a better environment for job growth. It stops several excessive government regulations on job creators. And it includes provisions that will help speed up the development of new American energy. I want to thank Chairman Rogers and his team for all the great work they've done sometimes under difficult circumstances. This is a bipartisan bill put together in a bipartisan way and I expect it to pass with bipartisan support."

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement on the spending bill which she said has been "agreed to by congressional and White House negotiators" and should avert a government shutdown. She said, "Thanks to President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, dozens of anti-environment 'riders' sought by the radical Tea Party and the House Republican leadership have been kept out of the omnibus spending bill. That's a victory for the American people. We've stopped the extremists from blocking restrictions on air pollution, fouling our waters, threatening endangered species and despoiling our public lands.

"Unfortunately, the bill still contains some damaging riders, including one that will weaken air pollution controls in the Arctic and another that will block funding to enforce new light bulb efficiency standards that were signed into law by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing on the payroll tax-cut extension bill, to which Republican leaders have attached two major anti-environmental assaults, one short-circuiting review of the Keystone XL pipeline and the other blocking mercury limits on industrial boilers. So the fight is not over. And all this was so unnecessary. If Republican leaders had just let Congress do its job of writing spending and tax bills, lawmakers could have completed their work weeks ago -- without having put the country through another manufactured crisis."

Regarding the payroll tax-cut extension bill, Speaker Boehner's office release a statement saying that "bipartisan support for the Keystone energy project has only continued to grow in the week since President Obama said he would 'reject' legislation supporting the job-creating pipeline. " The statement indicated that, "Yesterday, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters that Keystone 'has the backing of several Democrats.' 'It's always had more Democratic support than people thought,' she said. All told, as many as 14 Senate Democrats are reportedly supportive of Keystone. That's in addition to the 47 House Democrats who voted earlier this year to require the administration to act quickly act on the project. " The statement includes a number of supporting quotes from Senate and House Democrats.

Regarding the light bulb standards rider, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) issued a statement saying, "This decision may have little practical consequence on which incandescent light bulbs are available in stores because, starting Jan. 1, it will be illegal to produce or import the inefficient, wasteful bulbs in the United States. The five major bulb manufacturers have already switched to making and selling the better bulbs. If America is to have a rational energy policy, we need to make progress in efficiency. Blocking funds to enforce minimum standards works against our nation getting the full benefits of energy efficiency."

Yesterday evening, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) announced that the final fiscal year 2012 Appropriations legislation "will move forward with the approval of House and Senate conferees." He said, "The House and Senate have reached a final agreement to move forward on the final fiscal year 2012 Appropriations legislation. I am hopeful that the House and Senate can pass this bill tomorrow to prevent a government shutdown, fund critical programs and services for the American people, and cut spending to help put the nation's finances on a more sustainable path. In spite of many unnecessary obstacles, it is good to see that responsible leadership and good governance can triumph." The appropriations bill is, H.R.2055, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (MilCon VA Omnibus).

Today on the House Floor, Chairman Rogers presented the final Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations legislation, which includes the Conference report for the remaining nine Appropriations bills, as well as two other bills that provide funding for disaster recovery and assistance. He said the package cuts federal government spending "to the tune of some $95 billion." He thanked Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA), the Ranking Member and said, "I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to reduce federal spending, responsibly fund our troops and government programs, and provide crucial disaster aid funding."

Media reports indicate that the House is expected to adjourn Friday and return next week to finish the payroll tax legislation. The Senate is expected to work over the weekend on the appropriations bill.

Access the release from Speaker Boehner on the funding bill (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access the statement from the Speaker's office on the Keystone XL pipeline (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access yesterday's statement from Rep. Rogers (click here); and today's Floor statement (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2055 (click here). Access the Conference Report (click here). Access a report from The Hill on the latest activities (click here). [#HR2055, #KeystoneXL, #budget #GOP #DEMS, #taxcut]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Upheaval Continues

2011-12-15T16:02:00.000-05:00

Dec 15: The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee held a fascinating 3.5 hour hearing which addressed the incredibly complex and divergent points of view related to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and disagreements between the Chairman of the Commission Gregory Jaczko (a Democrat) and the remaining four Commissioners (2 Republican & 2 Democrats). The only way to capture the depth of the issue is to watch the video of the hearing. What is so fascinating, is that the facts, allegations and information presented by the two sides are so dramatically different.

WIMS has provided previous background on the issue which again has Republicans and Democrats divided [See WIMS See WIMS 12/13/11 & WIMS 12/14/11]. The intent of the hearing was to deal with a "Review of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century"; however, much of the hearing dealt with the disagreements between the Commissioners and the Chairman.

Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) lectured the four Commissioners saying, ". . .at our last NRC hearing on August 2, four of you made the commitment to me that you would move forward on some or all of the Near-Term Task Force recommendations within 90 days. To my great disappointment, that hasn't happened. Although Chairman Jaczko repeatedly asked you to keep your commitment to move expeditiously on safety, you are more than a month overdue in that commitment. It doesn't appear to me that such action is set to occur any time soon. Colleagues, less than a week after the Task Force delivered its report to the NRC, Chairman Jaczko laid out a road map to address the lessons learned from Fukushima, and he set a deadline of October 21 for action on those recommendations. He was proactive, because without a specific timetable for those common-sense safety measures, the NRC will not live up to its mandate to require nuclear power plants to be safe and reliable. . ."

Chairman Boxer commented on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on NRC Leadership, Chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) which was held yesterday (December 14). She said, "Yesterday, instead of focusing on nuclear plant safety, a House Committee conducted a witch hunt and attempted to assassinate the character of a dedicated public servant [i.e. Chairman Jaczko]. Frankly, I was shocked and appalled. One of you Commissioners even said in written testimony that the Chairman was abusive to women. I asked my staff to check out this accusation, and let me tell you what they found. They found the opposite -- in fact that the Chairman, according to one respected female staffer, was 'the most fair person' she has ever met. She went on to say 'he treats everyone equally.' Other comments include 'he invites people to dissent and I have never seen him mistreat others.' One woman said 'what I am floored by is the conduct of the other Commissioners.'"

She said, "The American people's faith in nuclear power was shaken by the Fukushima crisis, and the American public rightly expects the NRC to redouble its efforts to ensure that our nuclear plants are the safest in the world, but that has not happened yet. Let me tell you what happens when people lose confidence in the NRC and the nuclear industry. Right now, there is a petition being circulated for a ballot initiative that would effectively shut down the two nuclear power plants in California. I believe we will see more of that across the country if America doesn't have confidence in the NRC. . ."

Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) said in an opening statement, "I believe events over the last week have once again shown that nuclear safety is bipartisan: in this case two Democrats and two Republicans. I am dismayed by the numerous reports of Chairman Jaczko's intimidation and retaliation against senior agency staff, attempts to fundamentally undermine the collegial function of the Commission to forward his own objectives, and his efforts to withhold information from his fellow commissioners. However, I must say I am not surprised, given what I have learned through previous oversight hearings.

"What does surprise me is that the White House appears to condone such behavior, dismissing it as mere 'management differences'. Well, the 'management differences' we have here are serious: we have one Chairman who believes that bullying staff is acceptable in an effort to further his own agenda and four Commissioners who disagree. In 2006, the late Commissioner Ed McGaffigan, well-known and admired by members of this committee on both sides of the aisle, gave a speech to NRC employees about the importance of speaking the truth to those in power.

"Here is what he said: 'You come to an institution, NRC, that is routinely subject to baseless attacks by groups opposed to nuclear power that call themselves "nuclear watchdogs." These groups need to demonize NRC, you and me, to fund themselves and their anti-nuclear agenda. When I arrived at NRC in 1996, I had spent two decades working on national security issues first as a Foreign Service Officer, and then as an aide to Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). I did not know that I was a demon, but it did not take long for me to cast votes, based on my scientific, technical, and policy judgment, that were not to the liking of the anti-nuclear zealots and so I became a demon." He went on to say: ''Honor' often involves telling people, perhaps colleagues, perhaps supervisors, what they do not want to hear... And it may make you enemies. But stories I could tell you from my own career would persuade you that you can afford such enemies, but you cannot afford to compromise your honor, your personal compass.'

"What we saw this weekend was an immediate, concerted and very public attempt to demonize four public servants whose only crime is to conduct themselves with honor; to seek assistance, as a last resort, from the White House to address problems they had not been able to resolve on their own. Risking their professional reputations, they came forward on behalf of the employees who now work in a hostile environment; employees who are forced to choose between what they believe is right and what Chairman Jaczko wants them to do.

"Chairman Jaczko's actions simply can't be ignored. However, the White House appears willing to ignore the warning of 4 Commissioners, resting on their statements that his actions haven't impaired the Commission's ability to execute its mission to protect public health and safety...yet. Is the President waiting to act until it does? After all that we've learned, how can President Obama still believe that Mr. Jaczko remains the single best possible person to serve in this post? What will it take for him to change his mind?"

Access the hearing website for links to the testimony and statement and a video (click here). Note: WIMS is also including the House hearing website which includes testimony from the four Commissioners and background information. Access the House hearing website and link to the testimony (click here). Access the House Hearing Ranking Member Elijah Cummings' (D-MD) statement (click here). Also: Access the December 9 letter to the White House from Representative Issa and the October 13 letter from the NRC Commissioners (click here). Also: Access a lengthy release from Rep. Markey with links to additional information and video (click here). Access the complete 45-page Markey investigation report (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

NAS Report Calls For "System Safety" Approach In Offshore Drilling

2011-12-14T16:28:00.001-05:00

Dec 14: A report from the National Academy of Sciences' Engineering and National Research Council -- Macando Well-Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety -- indicates that to reduce the risk of another accident as catastrophic as the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, companies involved in offshore drilling should take a "system safety" approach to anticipating and managing possible dangers at every level of operation -- from ensuring the integrity of wells to designing blowout preventers that function "under all foreseeable conditions." In addition, an enhanced regulatory approach should combine strong industry safety goals with mandatory oversight at critical points during drilling operations.

The report says the lack of effective safety management among the companies involved in the Macondo Well-Deepwater Horizon disaster is evident in the "multiple flawed decisions that led to the blowout and explosion," which killed 11 workers and produced the biggest accidental oil spill in U.S. history. Regulators also failed to exercise effective oversight.

Donald Winter, former secretary of the Navy, professor of engineering practice at the University of Michigan, and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "The need to maintain domestic sources of oil is great, but so is the need to protect the lives of those who work in the offshore drilling industry as well as protect the viability of the Gulf of Mexico region. Industry and regulators need to include a factual assessment of all the risks in deepwater drilling operations in their decisions and make the overall safety of the many complex systems involved a top priority."

The report indicates that despite challenging geological conditions, alternative techniques and processes were available that could have been used to prepare the exploratory Macondo well safely for "temporary abandonment" -- sealing it until the necessary infrastructure could be installed to support hydrocarbon production. In addition, several signs of an impending blowout were missed by management and crew, resulting in a failure to take action in a timely manner. And despite numerous past warnings of potential failures of blowout preventer (BOP) systems, both industry and regulators had a "misplaced trust" in the ability of these systems to act as fail-safe mechanisms in the event of a well blowout.

The report indicates that BOP systems commonly in use -- including the system used by the Deepwater Horizon -- are neither designed nor tested to operate in the dynamic conditions that occurred during the accident. BOP systems should be redesigned, rigorously tested, and maintained to operate reliably. Proper training in the use of these systems in the event of an emergency is also essential. And while BOP systems are being improved, industry should ensure timely access to demonstrated capping and containment systems that can be rapidly deployed during a future blowout.

The report says that operating companies should have ultimate responsibility and accountability for well integrity because only they possess the ability to view all aspects of well design and operation. The drilling contractor should be held responsible and accountable for the operation and safety of the offshore equipment. Both industry and regulators should significantly expand the formal education and training of personnel engaged in offshore drilling to ensure that they can properly implement system safety. Guidelines should be established so that well designs incorporate protection against the various credible risks associated with the drilling and abandonment process. In addition, cemented and mechanical barriers designed to contain the flow of hydrocarbons in wells should be tested to make sure they are effective, and those tests should be subject to independent, near real-time review by a competent authority.

According to the report, the U.S. Department of the Interior's recent establishment of a Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) program -- which requires companies to demonstrate procedures for meeting explicit goals related to health, safety, and environmental protection -- is a "good first step" toward an enhanced regulatory approach. Regulators should identify and enforce safety-critical points that warrant explicit regulatory review and approval before operations can proceed. Offshore drilling operations are currently governed by a number of agencies, sometimes with overlapping authorities. The U.S. should make a single government agency responsible for integrating system safety for all offshore drilling activities. Reporting of safety-related incidents should be improved to enable anonymous input, and corporations should investigate all such reports and disseminate lessons learned to personnel and the industry as a whole.

Access a release from NAS (click here). Access the complete 124-page report and summary (click here). [#Energy/OilSpill]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Dispute Over Nuclear Regulatory Commission Leadership Gets Serious

2011-12-13T16:32:00.001-05:00

Dec 13: On October 13, the four of the five Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioners -- Kristine Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William Magwood IV and William Ostendorff -- sent a letter to the White House about Chairman Gregory Jaczko's behavior. In their letter, the Commissioners said, "We believe that Chairman Jaczko's actions and behavior area causing serious damage to this institution and are creating a chilled work environment at the NRC. We are concerned that this will adversely affect the NRC's essential mission to protect the health, safety and security of the American people." Svinicki and Ostendorff are Republicans and the other three Commissioners, including Jaczko, are Democrats. Jaczko is a former aide for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

On December 9, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released his letter to White House Chief of Staff William Daley and the letter from the NRC Commissioners. Chairman Issa requested someone from the White House to testify at the Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, December 14, entitled, "The Leadership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." Today, apparently the White House refused to testify and Chairman Issa said, "With four bipartisan commissioners raising deeply troubling concerns about abuse and mismanagement at the NRC, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than the White House is in denial about the severity of the situation at the NRC."

Yesterday, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), president and chief executive officer, Marvin Fertel issued a statement regarding the situation with the NRC and said, "Safe performance of nuclear energy facilities and the NRC's credibility are the two most important factors for policymaker and public confidence in nuclear energy. As such, the industry is concerned with anything that threatens the credibility of either. We are confident that Congress and the White House will take the steps necessary to ensure that the NRC is an efficient, effective regulator that provides oversight of commercial nuclear technology.

"The issue that is of most concern is the question of a chilled working environment at the agency, including the possibility of staff intimidation and harassment, at a time when the senior management and staff are working on critical licensing activities and post-Fukushima safety recommendations. The industry takes safety culture issues seriously and we expect the same priority treatment of these issues by our regulator. The NRC functions best when it has a full complement of five capable commissioners to provide guidance and direction to the NRC staff. Safety is maximized when NRC and industry resources are focused on those matters that are most important to safety. It is important that the dynamics that exist within the commission be resolved professionally and expeditiously so that the important work of the agency can continue without interruption or distraction. The American people expect and deserve nothing less.

"The industry's commitment to nuclear power plant safety is unwavering and we will not be distracted from this mission by events at the NRC. Of the top 20 performing plants in the world, 16 of them are American reactors. The industry exceeds federal safety standards and it is critical that our entire industry keep a sharp focus on safety. Furthermore, the industry is taking steps to make safe nuclear energy facilities even safer by applying the lessons learned from the accident in Japan at America's nuclear power plants."

In addition to the December 14, hearing, all five of NRC commissioners are scheduled to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on Thursday, December 15, for a hearing to review the Commission's actions related to the Task Force recommendations following the nuclear emergency in Japan. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the EPW issued a statement saying, "Instead of applauding the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for his swift and effective response to Fukushima, his fellow commissioners are attacking him. We must move away from the 'do nothing' culture of the NRC and support Chairman Jaczko as he translates the lessons of Fukushima into an action plan that will make America's nuclear plants the safest in the world."

EPW Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), issued a statement saying, "As Ranking Member of the committee of jurisdiction over the NRC, I am aware of the Commissioners' letter and taking their concerns very seriously. I commend the Commissioners for having the courage to raise these important issues, and I look forward to hearing from them when they testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee next week."

On December 10, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called on President Obama to address concerns raised by members of the NRC about the actions and management style of Chairman Jaczko. She said, "I have serious concerns about the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the safety of the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors under the divisive leadership of Chairman Jaczko.

"There have been signs for some time that the chairman's politicalization of matters crucial to the nation's energy security was disrupting the vital work of the commission, including resolving the issue of the permanent disposal of the nations' spent nuclear fuel and responding to safety concerns raised by the Fukishima accident. Now, reports have surfaced that Chairman Jaczko intimidated senior agency staff and ordered them to withhold information from other members of the commission and from Congress. If true, these actions represent a serious breach of the public's trust. Such behavior is unacceptable at any level of government and a response from the president is long overdue. The president needs to immediately address the concerns raised by the four commissioners if he wants members of Congress and the public to have faith in the agency."

    On December 9, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), released a blockbuster new report -- Regulatory Meltdown: How Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners Conspired to Delay and Weaken Nuclear Reactor Safety in the Wake of Fukushima -- that he says details how the four Commissioners on the NRC "colluded to prevent and then delay the work of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima." The Task Force was the entity tasked with making recommendations for improvement to NRC regulations and processes after the Fukushima meltdowns, the worst nuclear disaster in history. Representative Markey indicated in a release that, "The Near-Term Task Force members comprise more than 135 years of collective experience at the NRC, and with full access to expert NRC staff completed a methodical and comprehensive review of NRC's regulatory system."

    According to the release Markey's office reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including emails, correspondence, meeting minutes and voting records, and found "a concerted effort by Commissioners William Magwood, Kristine Svinicki, William Ostendorff and George Apostolakis to undermine the efforts of the Fukushima Task Force with request for endless additional study in an effort to delay the release and implementation of the task force's final recommendations. Documents also show open hostility on the part of the four Commissioners toward efforts of NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko to fully and quickly implement the recommendations of the Task Force, despite efforts on the part of the Chairman to keep the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed regarding the Japanese emergency."

    Representative Markey said, "The actions of these four Commissioners since the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left America's nuclear fleet and the general public at risk. Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four Commissioners have attempted a coup on the Chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America's nuclear industry. I call on these four Commissioners to stop the obstruction, do their jobs and quickly move to fully implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster."

Access a release from Rep. Issa on the hearing and investigation (click here). Access the December 9 letter to the White House and the October 13 letter from the NRC Commissioners (click here). Access the response from Rep. Issa (click here). Access the statement from NEI (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a lengthy release from Rep. Markey with links to additional information and video (click here). Access the complete 45-page Markey investigation report (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear]

In Overtime, Durban Negotiators Salvage An Agreement

2011-12-12T15:47:00.001-05:00

Dec 11: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17/CMP7 meeting in Durban, South Africa, which was scheduled to conclude Friday, December 9, went into overtime and finally ended on Sunday, December 11. The outcome of the 2-week negotiations in now known as the "Durban Platform."

According to a release from the UNFCCC, which definitely puts a positive spin on the outcome of the difficult negotiations indicates that the parties delivered a "breakthrough on the future of the international community's response to climate change," while "recognizing the urgent need to raise their collective level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the average global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius." Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and President of the Durban UN Climate Change Conference (COP17/CMP7) said, "We have taken crucial steps forward for the common good and the global citizenry today. I believe that what we have achieved in Durban will play a central role in saving tomorrow."

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC said, "I salute the countries who made this agreement. They have all laid aside some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose - a long-term solution to climate change. I sincerely thank the South African Presidency who steered through a long and intense conference to a historic agreement that has met all major issues." In a Reuters media report of various reactions, Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change indicated, "In the end, it ended up quite well. The (Durban platform) is the piece that was the matching piece with the Kyoto Protocol. We got the kind of symmetry that we had been focused on since the beginning of the Obama administration. This had all the elements that we were looking for."

The UNFCCC release indicates that in Durban, governments decided to "adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, but not later than 2015." Work will begin on this immediately under a new group called the "Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action." Governments, including 35 industrialized countries, "agreed a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from January 1, 2013." To achieve rapid clarity, "Parties to this second period will turn their economy-wide targets into quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives and submit them for review by May 1, 2012." Figueres said, "This is highly significant because the Kyoto Protocol's accounting rules, mechanisms and markets all remain in action as effective tools to leverage global climate action and as models to inform future agreements."

UNFCCC indicates that a significantly advanced framework for the reporting of emission reductions for both developed and developing countries was also agreed to, taking into consideration the "common but differentiated responsibilities" of different countries. In addition to charting the way forward on reducing greenhouse gases in the global context, governments meeting in South Africa agreed the full implementation of the package to support developing nations, agreed last year in Cancun, Mexico. Figueres said, "This means that urgent support for the developing world, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, will also be launched on time." The package includes the Green Climate Fund, an Adaptation Committee designed to improve the coordination of adaptation actions on a global scale, and a Technology Mechanism, which are to become fully operational in 2012.

While pledging to make progress in a number of areas, governments acknowledged the urgent concern that the current sum of pledges to cut emissions both from developed and developing countries is not high enough to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius. They therefore decided that the UN Climate Change process shall increase ambition to act and will be led by the climate science in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report and the global Review from 2013-2015. Figueres said, "While it is clear that these deadlines must be met, countries, citizens and businesses who have been behind the rising global wave of climate action can now push ahead confidently, knowing that Durban has lit up a broader highway to a low-emission, climate resilient future." The next major UNFCCC Climate Change Conference, COP 18/ CMP 8, is to take place November 26 to December 7, 2012 in Qatar, in close cooperation with the Republic of Korea. UNFCCC summarized the COP17 decisions as follows:

Green Climate Fund

Countries have already started to pledge to contribute to start-up costs of the fund, meaning it can be made ready in 2012, and at the same time can help developing countries get ready to access the fund, boosting their efforts to establish their own clean energy futures and adapt to existing climate change.
A Standing Committee is to keep an overview of climate finance in the context of the UNFCCC and to assist the Conference of the Parties. It will comprise 20 members, represented equally between the developed and developing world.
A focused work program on long-term finance was agreed, which will contribute to the scaling up of climate change finance going forward and will analyze options for the mobilization of resources from a variety of sources.

Adaptation

The Adaptation Committee, composed of 16 members, will report to the COP on its efforts to improve the coordination of adaptation actions at a global scale.
The adaptive capacities above all of the poorest and most vulnerable countries are to be strengthened. National Adaptation Plans will allow developing countries to assess and reduce their vulnerability to climate change.
The most vulnerable are to receive better protection against loss and damage caused by extreme weather events related to climate change.

Technology

The Technology Mechanism will become fully operational in 2012.
The full terms of reference for the operational arm of the Mechanism - the Climate Technology Centre and Network - are agreed, along with a clear procedure to select the host. The UNFCCC secretariat will issue a call for proposals for hosts on January 16, 2012.

Support of developing country action

Governments agreed a registry to record developing country mitigation actions that seek financial support and to match these with support. The registry will be a flexible, dynamic, web-based platform.

Other key decisions

A forum and work program on unintended consequences of climate change actions and policies were established.
Under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, governments adopted procedures to allow carbon-capture and storage projects. These guidelines will be reviewed every five years to ensure environmental integrity.
Governments agreed to develop a new market-based mechanism to assist developed countries in meeting part of their targets or commitments under the Convention. Details of this will be taken forward in 2012.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) International Climate Policy Director Jake Schmidt issued a statement saying: "The United States saw an opportunity to break down the wall blocking adoption of binding commitments by the largest emitting developing countries and took advantage of that. This outcome brings large countries like China and India into the room to negotiate meaningful commitments to address the urgent need to cut global emissions. This is important progress. Countries followed through on their agreements from Cancun by outlining detailed guidelines for more frequent reporting of their pollution and actions to combat global warming. This will mean greater transparency and accountability which is essential for ensuring that all countries are living up to their commitments. Countries now must follow through on the commitments they made in Durban. They must act at home, while also continuously working toward even more detailed international agreements in the near future."

Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate program for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "With tonight's agreement the world's climate polluters take the first small but essential steps toward creating a new global agreement to curb climate change. For the first time all major emitting nations, including China and India, have agreed on the need to move forward and to do so together. The challenge is that we begin the talks from the lowest common denominator of every party's aspirations. For this effort to be successful, countries need to be ambitious in their commitments and to refuse to use these negotiations as just another stalling tool."

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, "While governments avoided disaster in Durban, they by no means responded adequately to the mounting threat of climate change. The decisions adopted here fall well short of what is needed. It's high time governments stopped catering to the needs of corporate polluters, and started acting to protect people. The impacts of climate change are ever more evident, and we pump ever more carbon pollution into the atmosphere each year. We are in grave danger of locking in temperature increases well above two degrees Celsius, which would foreclose our ability to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Powerful speeches and carefully worded decisions can't amend the laws of physics. The atmosphere responds to one thing, and one thing only -- emissions. The world's collective level of ambition on emissions reductions must be substantially increased, and soon."

Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to the key text of the Durban documents (click here). [#Access the Reuters article which includes reactions from many key participants (click here). Access the statement from NRDC and link to additional details (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from UCS (click here). Access the U.S. State Department COP17 website for details on the U.S. activities (click here). Access links to complete information from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the CO.NX digital diplomacy team website with the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) at the U.S. Department of State for a back-stage pass to COP17 (click here). Access more information and day-by-day coverage from International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Reporting Services (click here, a summary & analysis will be available on Dec. 13). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Amidst Backlash, U.S. Forced To Defend Climate Position In Durban

2011-12-09T16:45:00.001-05:00

Dec 8: As the various country representatives attempt to hammer out a "Durban Agreement" during the waning hours of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17/CMP7 meeting being held in Durban, South Africa which concludes today, Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change was dispelling rumors that the United States was proposing to delay action on climate change until 2020.

Stern, who indicated he was heckled at the meeting, emphatically said, "It is completely off base to suggest that the U.S. is proposing that we delay action until 2020. Let's stop and think what's on the table over the next number of years. For one thing, countries -- whether it is the U.S., China, the EU, India, Brazil, whoever it is, and many, many other countries not in the category of majors -- are going to be working hard to implement targets or actions that they committed to in Cancun.

"We are in the international context going to be, hopefully, and I believe that this will be the case, rapidly setting up the Green Fund, rapidly setting up the Climate Technology Center and Network, setting up the Adaptation Committee, among other things. We will also be working hard to ramp up the funding that is supposed to reach a 100 billion dollars a year by 2020. There's a ton of work to be done in the years. We have been doing a lot of work on this, this year, and we will be continuing to do that as are many other countries. And all at the same time, if we get the kind of roadmap that countries have called for -- the EU has called for, that the U.S. supports -- for preparing for and negotiating a future regime, whether it ends up being legally binding or not, we don't know yet, but we are strongly committed to a promptly starting process to move forward on that.

"Take all of those things together; it's nonsense to suggest that what we are doing is proposing a kind of hiatus in dealing with climate change until after 2020. So, I just wanted to make that clear because, after I heard it about the fourth or fifth time in the last few days, and again I've heard this from everywhere from ministers to press reports to the very sincere and passionate young woman who was in the hall when I was giving my remarks. I just wanted to be on the record as saying that, that's just a mistake. It is not true."

Following Stern's initial statement, a further hostile question was asked stating, "The young woman, the Middlebury student, Abigail Borah, [Note: the 21 year old student was ejected from the climate conference after she interrupted Stern accusing the United States of stonewalling an agreement] said we need an urgent path towards a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty. Mr. Stern, as you pointed out increasingly at this conference, the perception is that the U.S. is blocking any substantive progress towards legally binding agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sixteen CEOs of environmental organizations in the United States said the same thing, that the U.S. is becoming the major obstacle here. Can you talk about the perception, as you've described it, of time out until 2020 when many of, for example, the African nations and the Island nations are talking about, they could be seeing very serious devastation. You yourself just pointed out there is a growing consensus here that the U.S. is blocking progress in any kind of serious commitment to a legally binding mandate here."

Stern answered the question saying, ". . .so I will try to repeat what I said a minute ago on part of your question, then I'll take the other part. But it's not a time out. I mean, it's not remotely a timeout. We reached an important agreement last year. We reached an agreement, which although it is not legally binding, it is a COP decision under a legally binding treaty, which is very serious and which covers more than 80 percent of global emissions as compared to a Kyoto agreement, which people are hoping will cover something in the order of 15 percent this year. It's got nothing to do with the time out. What is embedded in the Cancun agreement is so much more meaningful in terms of potential emission reductions than anything that is in Kyoto that there is no contest.

"So, I think again that that's a misconception plus, and I won't repeat everything that I just said a second ago about all of the various actions that are going to be taken promptly including the negotiation -- first the preparatory work and then the negotiation of a new regime which, you know, the EU has called for roadmap. We support that and we've -- I talked with the EU at length. I have also talked with my friends in -- from the BASIC countries and others. I mean, if there is a misconception, then it would be a good idea for the word to get out that it is just not accurate.

"Now, it is also not accurate to say, to describe the U.S. as blocking a legally binding agreement. What we are saying -- we, in the first months after I came into this job, we made a proposal. You can look it up if you'd like in -- to the secretariat, to the COP -- for a full, legally binding agreement. We've got the whole thing in the record, which calls for a legally binding agreement that would actually apply to all the major countries and cover the emissions that need to be covered if we are going to have a chance to solve this problem. That is what we proposed. That is exactly where these negotiations ought to be going. That is exactly where the international climate effort ought to be going. I mean, you can run around and pretend that behind this firewall, you are going to take 30 or 35 percent of global emissions and fix the problem. But you know what? You're not. So what the U.S. has been doing over the last two years, with all due respect, has been showing the leadership necessary to try to drag this process into the 21st century."

Back home in the U.S., the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works delivered completely opposite video messages to participants at the Durban meeting. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member and outspoken critic of climate science, delivered a YouTube address from Washington for a press conference organized by Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) held at the Durban meeting. The press conference featured an analysis from Senator Inhofe on the prospects of a new climate treaty in the U.S. Senate and the release of Marc Morano's (editor in chief of ClimateDepot.com ) new report "From A-Z" which Senator Inhofe indicated "details troubles and failings in what has been falsely proclaimed by global warming advocates to be a 'settled scientific consensus.'"

Senator Inhofe said, "I am confident that the only person left talking about global warming is me. The message from Washington to the UN delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: you are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate." He said the U.S. regulations being implemented and proposed are based "on the science of the now discredited UN IPCC." He indicated that the A-Z report, . . ."shows that on virtually every claim - from A-Z - the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing and the global warming movement is suffering a scientific death of a thousand cuts." In his release, he declared that the "Kyoto Process Is Dead."

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in her video message said, "Although I am not there with you in person, it in no way lessens my commitment to the work that you are doing in Durban and the importance of your mission to address climate change. This massive threat to the environment and human health that is posed by climate change requires us to put aside partisan differences, to find common ground, and to demand immediate international action. . . Climate scientists predict increased precipitation, stronger storms, and increased drought. In the U.S. this year we have seen a record number of weather-related disasters. . . greenhouse gas emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010 - the largest jump in emissions in any year since the Industrial Revolution began. . . While time has grown short, it is not too late.

"The message I have for climate deniers is this: you are endangering human kind. It is time for climate deniers to face reality, because the body of evidence is overwhelming and the world's leading scientists agree. . . Wishing that climate change will go away by clinging to a tiny minority view is not a policy - it is a fantasy. . . Climate change marches forward while special interests and their denier friends try to distract us from the work at hand. It is time for that to stop. . . I reaffirm my commitment to work as hard as I can to reduce the dangerous air pollution that causes climate change and harms the health and safety of people around the world. . . The nations of the world must work together to solve this problem, and I call on those gathered in Durban to work toward an international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with transparency and accountability. . ."

Access the complete transcript of the Todd Stern December 8 briefing (click here). Access a report from Think Progress with a video and picture of the Middlebury student disruption at the meeting (click here). Access a complete index of day-by-day briefing session webcasts on-demand including Todd Stern's December 8 briefing and others (click here). Access a release and video from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access a release and video from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the U.S. State Department COP17 website for details on the U.S. activities (click here). Access links to complete information from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the CO.NX digital diplomacy team website with the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) at the U.S. Department of State for a back-stage pass to COP17 (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

President Will Veto Keystone Attachment To Payroll Tax Cut

2011-12-08T15:46:00.001-05:00

Dec 8: President Obama and the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper met yesterday at the White House. They discussed an number of issue of importance to the two countries. Among the issues discussed was the Keystone XL pipeline and the Administration's recent decision to delay the project which could extend well into 2013, while the various agencies examine in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. [See WIMS 11/14/11 & WIMS 11/11/11]. The President also addressed directly the Republican's plan to attach Keystone XL and other environmental amendments to the payroll tax bill extending tax cuts for lower income workers.

In a release from the White House of the full text of the press briefing following the meeting of the two, President Obama said, "We did discuss the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is very important to Canada. And I think the Prime Minister and our Canadian friends understand that it's important for us to make sure that all the questions regarding the project are properly understood, especially its impact on our environment and the health and safety of the American people. And I assured him that we will have a very rigorous process to work through that issue."

During the question and answer session, a reporter asked: I have Keystone questions for both of you. Mr. President, we've got some House Republicans who are saying they won't approve any extension of the payroll tax cut unless you move up this oil pipeline project. Is that a deal you would consider? And also, how do you respond to their criticism that you punted this issue past the election for political reasons? And, Prime Minister Harper, you seemed to suggest the other day that politics is behind the way the Keystone issue has been handled. Do you really feel that way?

President Obama's response: First of all, any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject. So everybody should be on notice. And the reason is because the payroll tax cut is something that House Republicans, as well as Senate Republicans, should want to do regardless of any other issues. The question is going to be, are they willing to vote against a proposal that ensures that Americans, at a time when the recovery is still fragile, don't see their taxes go up by $1,000. So it shouldn't be held hostage for any other issues that they may be concerned about.

And so my warning is not just specific to Keystone. Efforts to tie a whole bunch of other issues to something that they should be doing anyway will be rejected by me.

With respect to the politics, look, this is a big project with big consequences. We've seen Democrats and Republicans express concerns about it. And it is my job as President of the United States to make sure that a process is followed that examines all the options, looks at all the consequences before a decision is made.

Now, that process is moving forward. The State Department is making sure that it crosses all its t's and dots all its i's before making a final determination. And I think it's worth noting, for those who want to try to politicize this issue, that when it comes to domestic energy production, we have gone all in, because our belief is, is that we're going to have to do a whole range of things to make sure that U.S. energy independence exists for a long time to come -- U.S. energy security exists for a long time to come.

So we have boosted oil production. We are boosting natural gas production. We're looking at a lot of traditional energy sources, even as we insist on transitioning to clean energy. And I think this shouldn't be a Democratic or a Republican issue; this should be an American issue -- how do we make sure that we've got the best possible energy mix to benefit our businesses, benefit our workers, but also benefit our families to make sure that the public health and safety of the American people are looked after. And that's what this process is designed to do.

Prime Minister Harper's response: I think my position, the position of the government of Canada, on this issue is very well known, and, of course, Barack and I have discussed that on many occasions. He's indicated to me, as he's indicated to you today, that he's following a proper project to eventually take that decision here in the United States, and that he has an open mind in regards to what the final decision may or may not be. And that's -- I take that as his answer. And you can appreciate that I would not comment on the domestic politics of this issue or any other issue here in the United States.

Follow-up Question to President Obama: Mr. President. By rejecting a veto, would you veto any payroll tax cuts if it had something else on it?

President Obama's response: I think it's fair to say that if the payroll tax cut is attached to a whole bunch of extraneous issues not related to making sure that the American people's taxes don't go up on January 1st, then it's not something that I'm going to accept. And I don't expect to have to veto it because I expect they're going to have enough sense over on Capitol Hill to do the people's business, and not try to load it up with a bunch of politics.

On December 8, At a press conference with Republican leaders, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) highlighted ongoing efforts to extend the payroll tax break for working families and help create new American jobs by taking action on the bipartisan Keystone XL energy project. He said, "We had a great conversation with our members about an agreement that we would move a bill that would extend and reform unemployment benefits, that would extend the payroll tax credit, while preserving the Social Security Trust Fund. It would also include some of our jobs initiatives, such as the Keystone pipeline and Boiler MACT.

"You know the president says that the American people 'can't wait' on jobs. Well guess what - we agree wholeheartedly with the president. The Keystone pipeline project will create tens of thousands of jobs immediately. It has bipartisan support in the House and Senate. It's pretty clear that the president's decided to push this decision off for a year conveniently until after his next election. Well the American people 'can't wait,' as the president said, and at a time when the American people are still asking the question 'where are the jobs?' I think this is a bipartisan proposal that the president ought to endorse."

Access the complete release and transcript (click here). Access a video of the press briefing (click here). Access the statement and video of the Speaker's comments (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation Council Initiatives (click here).[#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/TarSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Economic & Employment Contributions Of Shale Gas In The U.S.

2011-12-07T16:24:00.001-05:00

Dec 6: A report by IHS Global Insight, commissioned by the America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), indicates that the natural gas "shale gale" that has "dramatically transformed the outlook for U.S. energy supplies is also having profound economic impacts -- creating jobs, reducing consumer costs of natural gas and electricity, stimulating economic growth and bolstering federal, state and local tax revenue, according to a new IHS Global Insight study." The study found that shale gas production supported more than 600,000 jobs in 2010, a number that is projected to grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015.

The study, The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States, is reportedly the most definitive study to date tracking the long-term economic impact of U.S. shale gas production. It presents the economic contributions of shale gas in terms of jobs, economic value and government revenues through 2035, as well as the broader macroeconomic impacts on households and businesses. The report is the first of three on the economic effects of unconventional gas and oil development in North America. IHS Vice President John Larson, the lead author of the study said, "The rapid growth in shale gas production -- currently 34 percent of total U.S. production -- is one of the most significant energy developments in recent decades and is having a significant impact on the nation's economy in terms of stimulating job creation and economic growth. This study further informs the discussion with a greater understanding of the economic potential from this vast American energy source." Among the study's key findings:

Shale gas had grown to 27 percent of U.S. natural gas production by 2010; it is currently 34 percent and will reach 43 percent in 2015 and more than double by 2035 to 60 percent
In 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; by 2015 the total will likely grow to nearly 870,000 and to more than 1.6 million by 2035
Nearly $1.9 trillion in cumulative capital investments are expected to be made between 2010 and 2035
Annual capital expenditures, especially strong in the early years, will grow to $48.1 billion in 2015
The shale gas contribution to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was more than $76.9 billion in 2010; in 2015 it will be $118.2 billion and will triple to $231.1 billion in 2035
Over the next 25 years, the shale gas industry will generate more than $933 billion in tax revenues for local, state and the federal governments
Savings from lower gas prices, as well as the associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, equate to an annual average addition of $926 in disposable income per household between 2012 and 2015, and increase to more than $2,000 per household in 2035 on an annual basis

According to a release, the report's findings reflect the dramatic impact of shale gas production in the United States. As recently as 2007, it was believed that the country would soon need to import large volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for domestic consumption. Instead, shale gas production has more than doubled the size of the discovered natural gas resource in North America -- enough to satisfy more than 100 years of consumption at current rates. A key reason for the shale gas industry's profound economic impact is its high "employment multiplier" -- the indirect and induced jobs created to support an industry. For every direct job created in the shale gas sector, more than three indirect and induced jobs are created, a rate higher than the financial and construction industries.

The study also found that shale gas and related jobs pay higher wages on average -- currently $23.16 per hour -- than those paid to workers in manufacturing, transportation and education. The IHS Global Insight study measured the broader impact of lower natural gas prices, finding that over the 2010-2035 period prices on average would be at least two times higher absent shale gas production. This impact is even greater now and over the next few years when prices would have been two-and-a-half to three times higher. The lower natural gas prices have resulted in a 10 percent reduction in electricity costs nationally and that flows through the economy to lead to lower prices for many other consumer purchases.

Lower gas prices also boost the international competitiveness of domestic manufacturers, resulting in 2.9 percent higher industrial production by 2017 and 4.7 percent higher production by 2035. Larson said, "Absent the added supply from shale gas production, large volumes of LNG imports would be required and U.S. consumers would be paying European or even Asian prices which are two to three times what they are today here in the U.S. The benefits of that savings reverberate through the wider economy."

In measuring the economic contribution of shale gas, the study fully "sized" the economic influence of the industry by capturing all the supply chain and income effects associated with shale gas activity in the U.S. The results of the production and capital expenditure profile analysis were integrated into a customized modeling approach developed by IHS Global Insight. This approach links Input-Output modeling techniques similar to those used by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Congressional Budget Office with the dynamic modeling capabilities of proprietary IHS models to capture the industry's comprehensive contribution and impact on the economy. ... indicated that, "The results represent a conservative estimate."

Speaking at the "West Virginia: Energy Powering Economic Development" summit called by WV Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, on December 6, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley reinforced the economic and employment opportunities from shale gas development. Dooley said, "While many experts have focused on the jobs and revenues that could come from exploration and production of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, the manufacturing story is just beginning to be told. Shale gas could generate thousands of new jobs in the chemical industry and its supply chain. It's one of the most promising developments for new manufacturing jobs in at least a decade."

He said, "Affordable, abundant shale gas is creating a global competitive advantage for the domestic petrochemical industry. After years of high, volatile natural gas prices that helped lead to the loss of 140,000 chemical jobs, the industry is expanding once again. Chemical manufacturers make a key product, ethylene, from the ethane found in shale gas, giving U.S. companies a significant edge over Western European competitors using a more expensive, oil-based feedstock. New chemical business can spur growth in supplier sectors, help produce more materials for export, and create jobs." Dooley noted. A recent ACC study found that the $3.2 billion investment in a major ethylene production complex in West Virginia would generate 12,000 jobs in chemical and supplier industries, $729 million in wages and $95 million in state tax revenue. Nationally, a 25 percent increase in ethane production would result in nearly 400,000 new jobs. He said, "Shale gas is a game changer."

Dooley pointed out, "However, the full potential from shale gas will only be realized with sound state regulatory policies that allow for aggressive production in an environmentally responsible way. America's chemistry industry supports efforts to continually improve production processes, including the use of best practices. We make many of these advanced production technologies possible."

Access a release from IHS Global Insight (click here). Access a required registration form to download the complete report (click here). Access the ANGA website for additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [#Energy/NatGas]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

U.S. Climate Change Envoy Details U.S. COP17 Agenda

2011-12-06T16:20:00.001-05:00

Dec 6: The U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, arrived in Durban, South Africa for the beginning of the second week of the major United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17/CMP7 meeting being held from November 28 December 9, 2011. In this critical second week the parties will attempt to decide the future of an international agreement on climate change and the details of methods to assist developing nations and halt the rise of the Earth's temperature. Stern held a press briefing on December 5, outlining the U.S. position and responded to questions from reporters.

Stern said in part, "The U.S. is committed to working with our partners to make Durban a success, and for us a balanced package in Durban includes two main elements, two main elements of this negotiation, I think, in general. One is to carry out the agreements that were reached in last year's Cancun negotiation which was a very important negotiation that included for the first time, in an agreement adopted by the COP, undertakings by all the major economies, and many players beyond that, actually, to reduce their emissions as well as a transparency regime, an agreement to set up a Green Climate Fund, a technology center network, an adaptation committee and so forth. So there are important elements of what should become the architecture of an international climate system, and we did those things last year in the sense of agreeing to do them and now we need to follow through and do them. And what can happen this year in Durban is to take important steps to do the guidelines of the transparency system, get the Green Fund going, get the technology center going and so forth, and there will obviously still be further work in the coming year to make those, to get those things fully up and running. But there is important work to be done in that regard here, and that's probably the highest priority for the United States.

"The second set of issues swirls around the Kyoto Protocol, what happens with respect to a potential second commitment period and the closely related issue of what might or might not be said about some future regime. So that's also an issue of a good deal of intensity and focus, and there will be a lot of discussion about that as we go forward this week." He then responded to questions. A sampling of the Q&A is included below.

Question: Can you explain how, how the U.S. hopes to reach that or when we might see an explanation of how the U.S. hopes to reach that goal without a domestic legislation. And secondly, and until that is produced, why should other countries, you know adhere to, to, or answer to the things that the U.S. is concerned about until they show how you're going to cut carbon yourself.

Answer: "There has been very aggressive action taken with respect to the entire transportation sector, which is more than a third of our total emissions. . . EPA is also in the process of doing regulations for stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. Those are things like power plants and so those are two very important elements. . . investment in green technology, some $90 billion, which has gone for renewables, for efficiency, for building a smart grid. . . I think it's quite plausible that there will need to be legislation on the road to 2020. . . I think we are trying to help move this negotiation into a paradigm that makes sense for the future. . . the U.S is a big player, and there are a lot of other big players, and there's a lot of small players who are very important, so I think that negotiation will continue. . ."

Question: Over the weekend, Minister Xie of China said, and repeated again this morning, that China was willing to enter into a binding international treaty on climate after 2020 if five conditions were met, I think you're familiar with the five. Do you consider this a step forward, a step back, or a step sideways for China?

Answer: "This is what I would say generally about a legally binding agreement. What matters in order for there to be a legally binding agreement at such time as that might happen, whenever that may be, it's going to be absolutely critical that all the major players, and China obviously is one of them. At this point China is 70 percent larger than the United States in carbon from energy, which is not everything, but it's most of greenhouse gases, and rising rapidly, which is just a testament to their extraordinary economy. It's no criticism, it's just a fact.

"So, in order for there to be a legally binding agreement that makes sense, all the major players are going to have to be in with obligations, with commitments that have the same legal force. It doesn't mean they have to be exactly the same thing, but they have to apply with the same legal effect to all parties. And that means there's no conditionality, they're not conditional on receiving technology or financing, there's no trap doors, there's no Swiss cheese in that kind of an agreement. So that's imperative, and there are many parties who talk about a legally binding agreement, which would be kind of consistent with the structure that they see in the Bali Roadmap under which developed countries have legally, mandatory obligations, and developing countries have what are called in the somewhat arcane lexicon of this business, NAMAs -- Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions -- which are understood to be voluntary actions. So a legally binding agreement that is premised on that kind of division would not make any sense.

"China has not been willing to do the kind of legally binding agreement that I'm talking about. It would also incidentally -- any future legally binding agreement -- could not be premised on a 1992 division of countries. It just doesn't make any sense. The world has changed dramatically since 1992, so to the extent that there is any division of countries in an agreement going forward, it would have to evolve dynamically to reflect the changes in economic and emissions growth over the years."

On December 6, Stern held another briefing. In response to a question regarding the future of the Kyoto Protocol he said, ". . .it is very kind of normal in this climate change world from the perspective of press, observers, and sort of everybody who is involved to think about the legal-bindingness as the kind of sole indicator of what is important or significant. And we don't agree with that.

"It is an element and, in the right circumstances, it might be a good element. But it is certainly not the only element. And you know, as I have said on many occasions, when you look at Cancun, you look at Kyoto right now, let's assume, as I said that Kyoto goes forward in some fashion in Durban, it is likely to cover somewhere in the vicinity of 15 percent of global emissions.

"Cancun includes submissions, either targets or actions from developed and developing countries. I have lost track of the exact number of countries, but it is upwards of 80 or more countries, who made submissions and more than 80 percent of global emissions being covered. And these weren't kind of casual, you know, we'll think about doing X, Y or Z. These were, it was first of all made under the, in the context of a decision of the COP last year. Made under a legally binding treatythe Framework Conventionand they are serious submissions that I think all the countries who made them intend to carry them out. . ."

Access the complete December 5 transcript of the press briefing and the Q&A's (click here). Access the complete December 6 transcript of the press briefing and the Q&A's (click here). Access a complete index of day-by-day briefing session webcasts on-demand including Todd Stern's December 5 & 6 briefing (click here). Access the U.S. State Department COP17 website for details on the U.S. activities (click here). Access links to complete information from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the CO.NX digital diplomacy team website with the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) at the U.S. Department of State for a back-stage pass to COP17 (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Gulf Coast Task Force Releases Final Strategy

2011-12-05T16:31:00.001-05:00

Dec 5: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force released its final strategy for long term ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast, following extensive feedback from citizens throughout the region. EPA Administrator and Task Force Chair Lisa Jackson, partnering with Task Force Co-Chair Garret Graves, made the announcement during keynote remarks at the 2011 State of the Gulf of Mexico Summit in Houston. Administrator Jackson was joined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman and several other Task Force members.

    The Task Force delivered the final strategy on Friday, December 2 to President Obama, who established the Task Force by executive order, to continue the Administration's ongoing commitment to the Gulf region [See WIMS 10/6/10]. The group is made up of representatives from the five Gulf States and 11 Federal agencies, including EPA, CEQ, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce (NOAA), Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy and White House Domestic Policy Council.

    The strategy is the first restoration blueprint ever developed for the Gulf to include input from states, tribes, Federal agencies, local governments and thousands of involved citizens and organizations across the region. The plan represents a commitment by all parties to continue to work together in an unprecedented collaboration to prepare the Gulf region to transition from response to recovery and address the decades-long decline that the Gulf's ecosystem has endured.

    EPA Administrator Jackson said, "After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, this Task Force brought together people from across the Gulf Coast in unparalleled ways to talk about how we tackle both the immediate environmental devastation, as well as the long-term deterioration that has for decades threatened the health, the environment and the economy of the people who call this place home. It has all come to this moment -- when we move from planning and researching to supporting real, homegrown actions aimed at restoring this vital ecosystem."

    With the release of the final strategy today, the Task Force marks the beginning of the implementation phase of the strategy by announcing new initiatives, including $50 million in assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service to help agricultural producers in seven Gulf Coast river basins improve water quality, increase water conservation and enhance wildlife habitat. USDA's multi-year environmental restoration effort, known as the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, or GoMI, represents a 1,100% increase in financial assistance for Gulf priority watersheds.

    The natural resources of the Gulf's ecosystem are vital to many of the region's industries that directly support economic progress and job creation, including tourism and recreation, seafood production and sales, energy production and navigation and commerce. The final strategy was developed following more than 40 public meetings throughout the Gulf to listen to the concerns of the public. Among the key priorities of the strategy are:

1) Stopping the Loss of Critical Wetlands, Sand Barriers and Beaches -- The strategy recommends placing ecosystem restoration on an equal footing with historic uses such as navigation and flood damage reduction by approaching water resource management decisions in a far more comprehensive manner that will bypass harm to wetlands, barrier islands and beaches. The strategy also recommends implementation of several congressionally authorized projects in the Gulf that are intended to reverse the trend of wetlands loss.

2) Reducing the Flow of Excess Nutrients into the Gulf -- The strategy calls for working in the Gulf and upstream in the Mississippi watershed to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf by supporting state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches, and targeted watershed work to reduce agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients.

3) Enhancing Resiliency among Coastal Communities -- The strategy calls for enhancing the quality of life of Gulf residents by working in partnership with the Gulf with coastal communities. The strategy specifically recommends working with each of the States to build the integrated capacity needed through effective coastal improvement plans to better secure the future of their coastal communities and to implement existing efforts underway.

Access a lengthy release from the Task Force with additional comments and information (click here). Access the final strategy and additional information on the Task Force website (click here). [#Energy/OilSpill]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Re-Proposes "Boiler MACT" & Incinerator Rules

2011-12-02T16:29:00.001-05:00

Dec 2: U.S. EPA is proposing changes to Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators (i.e. "Boiler MACT" rules, Proposed rules; Reconsideration of final rules) based on extensive analysis, review and consideration of data and input from states, environmental groups, industry, lawmakers and the public. EPA said the proposed reconsideration would achieve extensive public health protections through significant reductions in toxic air pollutants, including mercury and soot, while increasing the rule's flexibility and addressing compliance concerns raised by industry and labor groups. The changes also cut the cost of implementation by nearly 50 percent from the original 2010 proposed rule while maintaining health benefits. These standards meet important requirements laid out in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

    EPA indicates that soot and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to adverse health effects including cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death. In addition, toxic pollutants such as mercury and lead that will be reduced by this proposal are linked to developmental disabilities in children. These standards will avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths, prevent 5,100 heart attacks and avert 52,000 asthma attacks per year in 2015.

    According to EPA, more than 99 percent of boilers in the country are either clean enough that they are not covered by these standards or will only need to conduct maintenance and tune-ups to comply. Today's latest proposals focus on the less than one percent of boilers that emit the majority of pollution from this sector. For these high emitting boilers, typically operating at refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities, EPA is proposing more targeted emissions limits that protect Americans' health and provide industry with practical, cost-effective options to meet the standards informed by data from these stakeholders. The limits are based on currently available technologies that are in use by sources across the country.

    As a result of further information gathered through the reconsideration process, including significant dialog and meetings with stakeholders, the proposal maintains the dramatic cuts in the cost of implementation that were achieved in the final rules issued in March [See WIMS 2/23/11] while continuing to deliver significant public health benefits. As a result, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $12 to $30 in health benefits, including fewer premature deaths.

    Using a wide variety of fuels, including coal, natural gas, oil and biomass, boilers are used to power heavy machinery, provide heat for industrial and manufacturing processes in addition to a number of other uses, or heat large buildings. EPA's proposal recognizes the diverse and complex range of uses and fuels and tailors standards to reflect the real-world operating conditions of specific types of boilers. Some of the key changes EPA is proposing include:

    Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: The major source proposal covers approximately 14,000 boilers less than one percent of all boilers in the United States located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. EPA is proposing to create additional subcategories and revise emissions limits. EPA is also proposing to provide more flexible compliance options for meeting the particle pollution and carbon monoxide limits, replace numeric emissions limits with work practice standards for certain pollutants, allow more flexibility for units burning clean gases to qualify for work practice standards and reduce some monitoring requirements. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing these standards remains about $1.5 billion less than the April 2010 proposed standards. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers have increased by almost 25 percent and are estimated to be $27 billion to $67 billion in 2015.

    Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: The proposal also covers about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including commercial buildings, universities, hospitals and hotels. However, due to how little these boilers emit, 98 percent of area source boilers would simply be required to perform maintenance and routine tune-ups to comply with these standards. Only 2 percent of area source boilers may need to take additional steps to comply with the rule. To increase flexibility for most of these sources, EPA is proposing to require initial compliance tune-ups after two years instead after the first year.

    Solid waste incinerators and revisions to the list of non-hazardous secondary materials: There are 95 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. EPA is proposing to adjust emissions limits for waste-burning cement kilns and for energy recovery units.

EPA is also proposing revisions to its final rule which identified the types of non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators. Following the release of that final rule, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the regulatory criteria for a non-hazardous secondary material to be considered a legitimate, non-waste fuel, and how to demonstrate compliance with those criteria. To address these concerns, EPA's proposed revisions provide clarity on what types of secondary materials are considered non-waste fuels, and greater flexibility. The proposed revisions also classify a number of secondary materials as non-wastes when used as a fuel and allow for a boiler or solid waste operator to request that EPA identify specific materials as a non-waste fuel.

Following the April 2010 proposals [See WIMS 4/30/10], the agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses, communities and other key stakeholders. As part of the reconsideration process, EPA also received additional feedback after the agency issued the final standards in March 2011 [See WIMS 2/23/11]. EPA will accept public comment on these standards for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. EPA intends to finalize the reconsideration by spring 2012.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons issued this statement on the revised Boiler MACT rules issued by EPA saying, "The EPA's revised Boiler MACT rules will do significant harm to job growth and investment at a critical time in our recovery. This is yet another example of the EPA pursuing an aggressive agenda that is putting jobs at risk and creating uncertainty throughout the economy. Factoring in regulatory costs currently in place, it is already 20 percent more expensive to manufacture in the United States compared to our major trade partners.

"We will continue to urge the EPA to extend the compliance time frame and consider a more reasonable approach to setting the emission standards to ensure additional jobs are not put at risk. As long as these rules remain open to court challenges, legislation is needed to give manufacturers more certainty so they can begin to invest and create jobs. The House passed legislation earlier this year, and we strongly encourage the Senate to take a stand for jobs and pass the EPA Regulatory Relief Act as soon as possible [H.R.2250, See WIMS 10/14/11]. America's job creators can no longer afford to be saddled with costly, burdensome and unrealistic regulations.

"The employment report released today shows that only 2,000 new manufacturing jobs were created last month -- we have to do better. Growth in manufacturing employment has stalled in recent months, and manufacturers are encouraging Congress to adopt policies that will enable manufacturers to invest in the future and create jobs."

Earthjustice Attorney James Pew issued a statement saying, "Industry has assailed these clean air standards from the moment they were proposed, and they've largely achieved their goals in the updated version released today by the EPA. All the while, communities across the country that are overburdened by air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators continue to suffer the impacts of breathing dirty air. With this reproposal, we hope industry will abandon its effort in Congress to kill these standards entirely and instead let the EPA begin the important job of improving air quality. Despite the standard's many flaws, it will reduce premature death, asthma attacks and other serious disease, and that work should begin without any further delay."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access complete details including an overview, presentation, prepublication copies of each of the three proposed rules, fact sheets for each rule and additional information on the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material proposed changes (click here). Access the release from NMA (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access multiple WIMS postings on the Utility MACT rules (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Issues Two Proposed Vessel General Discharge Permits

2011-12-01T16:08:00.001-05:00

Nov 30: U.S. EPA announced that it is issuing two draft vessel general permits that would regulate discharges from commercial vessels -- excluding military and recreational vessels. EPA said the proposed permits would help protect the nation's waters from ship-borne pollutants and reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species from ballast water discharges.

    The draft Vessel General Permit, which covers commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length, would replace the current 2008 Vessel General Permit, when it expires in December 2013. Under the Clean Water Act, permits are issued for a five-year period after which time EPA generally issues revised permits based on updated information and requirements. The new draft Small Vessel General Permit would cover vessels smaller than 79 feet in length and would provide such vessels with the Clean Water Act permit coverage they will be required to have as of December 2013.

    Both permits will be subject to a 75-day public comment period, which will allow a broad array of stakeholders, including industry and communities, to provide feedback. That information will help inform EPA's decision on the final permits, which are expected to go into effect in 2013. EPA intends to issue the final permits in November 2012, a full year in advance, to allow vessel owners and operators time to prepare for new permit requirements.

    Information on the draft Vessel General Permit: EPA said the updated permit would reduce the administrative burden for vessel owners and operators, eliminating duplicative reporting requirements, clarifying that electronic recordkeeping may be used instead of paper records, and streamlining self-inspection requirements for vessels that are out of service for extended periods. The permit would continue to regulate the 26 specific discharge categories that were contained in the 2008 permit and, for the first time, manage the discharge of fish hold effluent.

    A key new provision of the permit is a proposed "numeric standard" to control the release of non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. The new ballast water discharge standard addressing invasive species is based upon results from independent EPA Science Advisory Board and National Research Council National Academy of Sciences studies. These limits are generally consistent with those contained in the International Maritime Organization's 2004 Ballast Water Convention.

EPA said the new standard is expected to substantially reduce the risk of introduction and establishment of non-indigenous invasive species in U.S. waters. The draft Vessel General Permit also contains updated conditions for mechanical systems that may leak lubricants into the water and exhaust gas scrubber washwater, which would reduce the amount of oil and other pollutants that enter U.S. waters. EPA will take comment on potentially more stringent requirements for bilgewater discharges.

Information on the draft Small Vessel General Permit: EPA indicates that this permit would be the first under the Clean Water Act to address discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length. Recognizing that small commercial vessels are substantially different in how they operate than their larger counterparts, the draft Small Vessel General Permit is shorter and simpler. The draft permit specifies best management practices for several broad discharge management categories including fuel management, engine and oil control, solid and liquid maintenance, graywater management, fish hold effluent management and ballast water management, which consists of common sense management measures to reduce the risk of spreading invasive species. The permit would go into effect at the conclusion of a current moratorium enacted by Congress that exempts all incidental discharges from such vessels, with the exception of ballast water, from having to obtain a permit until December 18, 2013.

    A number of Great Lakes oriented environmental organization reacted immediately to EPA's proposals and said, "Unfortunately, EPA's new limits are pegged to standards established by the International Maritime Organization [IMO], which while supported by the shipping industry, are not strict enough to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive organisms which currently cost the eight Great Lakes states over $1 billion every five years. Thom Cmar, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "It is hard to see the movement of invasive species until it is too late. Unfortunately, out of sight, out of mind has meant that we have not dealt with the problem of 'living pollution' as aggressively as other environmental threats like oil spills or toxic releases. The new proposed ballast water permit is par for that course --- it is a start, but nowhere near what is needed to stop these uninvited critters from sapping our most valuable water resources."

    The groups -- National Wildlife Federation, NRDC Great Lakes United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and Healing Our Waters Coalition -- indicated that the permit update comes on the heels of a long legal battle to force EPA to regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act. They said protective limits on invasive species in vessels' ballast discharges are necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species carried in the ballast tanks from overseas ports. Species like the zebra and quagga mussels, spiny water fleas, and round gobies have all arrived to the Great Lakes via the unregulated discharge of contaminated ballast water.

    In a release the groups said, "While the new permit represents an improvement over previous versions, conservation groups and scientists are concerned that the weak international standards are not strict enough to prevent the next major invasive species threat. International Maritime Organization ballast water standards are not scientifically based and offer only a marginal improvement over the current practice of flushing ballast tanks with saltwater."

They said the federal Clean Water Act requires EPA to give states an opportunity to add requirements to the proposed permit if the states find that more stringent provisions are necessary to protect against vessels' pollution. The states of New York and California have already adopted far more stringent standards, based on their own scientific determinations that anything less protective would leave their waters vulnerable to new species invasions. As part of EPA's permit update, all of the states will have the opportunity to decide whether they will adopt their own more stringent ballast water standards. In addition, the Coast Guard has finally sent its final rulemaking to set standards for living organisms in Ships' ballast water to the Office of Budget and Management. By contrast, recent legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would also adopt the weak International Maritime Organization ballast water standards, but it would do so while also eliminating EPA's authority to require more protections under the Clean Water Act, as well as states' authority to create more stringent requirements under tougher state laws.

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access complete details including the two proposed permits, fact sheets, scheduled meetings, commenting procedures and economic analyses (click here). Access complete background and information on Vessel Discharges (click here). Access a lengthy release from the environmental groups with further comments (click here). [#Water, #Wildlife, #GLakes]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)